Beal v. Dellinger
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
ARNOLD, Judge.
Respondents contend that this proceeding should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. They rely on Pruden v. Keemer, 262 N.C. 212, 136 S.E. 2d 604 (1964), but that case is not on point. In Pruden, the Court found a lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the petition had failed to allege what boundary line was in dispute, or in fact that any boundary line was in dispute. There the petitioners merely had set out what they believed to be the true location of the boundary of their lands and liad alleged that respondents’ lands would be “affected”…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Cornelison v. . HammondSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
- Pruden v. KeemerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
- McCanless v. . BallardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
- Robinette v. WikeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
3Cited by5 opinions
- Chappell v. DonnellyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
- Combs v. WoodieCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
- Beal v. DellingerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
- Burris v. ShumateCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
- Nichols v. WilsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994