Myrtle Apartments, Inc. v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtHiggins, J.
In testing the sufficiency of a complaint, the court ignores the conclusions and looks to the facts. Here, the plaintiff alleged: “The boiler was in all respects sound and in proper working condition”; and that the defendant, through its engineer, represented that, “The general condition of the boiler is poor. It is, therefore, recommended that this boiler be replaced with a new or better one of standard construction as soon as this heating season is over.”
With respect to the further representations in the letter, the plaintiff alleged: “And as to the remaining representations and contents of…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Vail v. VailSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- Ward v. . HealthSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
- Ward v. HeathSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
- Shives v. SampleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Davis v. RhodesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Johnson v. Phoenix Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
- Myers & Chapman v. Thomas G. EvansSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
- Wells Fargo Ins. Servs. United States, Inc. v. LinkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2019
- Stanford v. OwensCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
- Leftwich v. GainesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.