McWilliams v. Parham
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtLake, J.
The motion to strike is directed to the entire second further answer and to the entire third further answer for the reason, in each instance, that the allegations therein contained do not constitute a defense to the cause of action alleged in the complaint. The motion is, therefore, equivalent to a demurrer to each such further answer. Cecil v. B. B., 266 N.C. 728, 147 S.E. 2d 223; Galloway v. Lawrence, 263 N.C. 433, 139 S.E. 2d 761; Williams v. Hunter, 257 N.C. 754, 127 S.E. 2d 546.
In each instance the motion should have been allowed.
The defense which the second further answer purports to…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Warner v. LederSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- Essick v. City of LexingtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
- Lewis v. BarnhillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- Cobia v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
- Getz v. FreedSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Rosas v. Buddies Food StoreTexas Supreme Court · 1975
- Rutter v. Northeastern Beaver County School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Woodling v. Garrett Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
- Rosenau Ex Rel. Rosenau v. City of EsthervilleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1972
- Marshall v. RanneTexas Supreme Court · 1974
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.