Talbert v. . Becton
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was a civil action, tried before Boykin, /., at May Term, 1892, of CumbeblaND Superior Court. The action was commeuced in the name of E. F. Moore,, by summons dated June 27, 1887. The complaint and answer were on file and case reached for trial at May Term, 1890, and after the jury were empaneled the plaintiff asked that a juror be withdrawn and mistrial had, and that Abbie Talbert, wife of S. B. Talbert, be substituted as party plaintiff with leave to file an amended…
Read the full summary
This was a civil action, tried before Boykin, /., at May Term, 1892, of CumbeblaND Superior Court. The action was commeuced in the name of E. F. Moore,, by summons dated June 27, 1887. The complaint and answer were on file and case reached for trial at May Term, 1890, and after the jury were empaneled the plaintiff asked that a juror be withdrawn and mistrial had, and that Abbie Talbert, wife of S. B. Talbert, be substituted as party plaintiff with leave to file an amended complaint. The defendant objected, but the order was made, as appears in papers. Defendant excepted. Before the trial…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee. Curiam:
Moore, the original plaintiff, conveyed to Mrs. Talbert after the action was brought. The Court had a right to substitute her as a party plaintiff. The Code, § 188. 'The action was based on the legal title alone, the plaintiff alleging ownership and'the defendant simply denying it. 'The refusal of the Court to consider the equitable defence, in the absence of any pleading setting it up, was proper. There must be allegata as well as probata. Neither was there error in the refusal to allow an amendment of the pleadings. This was a matter addressed to the discretion of the Court. The…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Toler v. . FrenchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
- Alley v. Howell.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- Burnett v. Lyman.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- Orkin Exterminating Company v. O'HANLONSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956