Phifer v. Travellers Insurance Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This is the same case, between the same parties decided at the present Term, adjudging the insufficiency of the verification of the answer. The point is now presented for the decision of the Court as to the sufficiency of the verification of the complaint so as to 'require a verified answer. The’facts are presented in the opinion. The same counsel appear for the parties.
1Opinion of the Court
DOUGLAS, J., delivers the opinion. FURCHES, J., dissents. This is an appeal from the judgment rendered in the above-entitled action, which is the same original action in which the motion was made to set aside the judgment for excusable neglect under section 274 of The Code. In this appeal two errors are assigned: (1) That the complaint was not properly verified, and that therefore the answer required no verification; (2) that the judgment, if at all regular, should have been by default and inquiry, and not by default final.
Under our view of the law, it is not necessary to consider the second…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Alspaugh v. . WinsteadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1878
3Cited by15 opinions
- Godwin v. Telephone Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Barber v. Justice.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- McLamb v. . McPhailSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1900
- Miller v. . CurlSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- Cole v. . BoydSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1899
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.