Mack v. Marshall Field & Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtClarkson, J.
Did the court below commit error in sustaining the demurrer ore tenus to the complaint and motions for judgment on the pleadings made by each of the defendants ? We think so under the facts and circumstances of this case.
In Leonard v. Maxwell, 216 N. C., 89 (91), citing authorities, it is stated: “The office of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of a pleading,, admitting, for the purpose, the truth of factual averments well stated *59and sueb relevant inferences as may be deduced therefrom, but it does not admit any legal inferences or conclusions of law asserted by tbe pleader.”
It is well…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Haynes v. Kaleigh Gas Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
- Leonard v. MaxwellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- Brown v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
- Brown v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- Mitchell v. Raleigh Electric Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1901
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Jones v. Otis Elevator Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
- Cathey v. . Construction Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- Adams v. . CleveSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- Whitehead Anderson, Inc. v. . BranchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
- Cathey v. Southeastern Construction Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.