Legal Opinion

Gillikin v. Springle

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 8, 1961No. 95PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRodman, J.

When it affirmatively appears from the complaint that plaintiff has no right of action, this Court is not required to await a formal demurrer. It may, ex mero motu, dismiss the action. Skinner v. Transformadora, 252 N.C. 320, 113 S.E. 2d 717. If there is a mere defect in the attempted statement of the cause of action, plaintiff should be permitted to amend.

The rule which is applied here may be used by the Superior Court, particularly when, as here, there is a motion for judgment on the pleading. Speas v. Ford, 253 N.C. 770.

Giving the pleadings the liberal construction commanded by the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Horne v. . EdwardsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
  2. McCoy v. . JusticeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  3. Skinner v. Empresa Transformadora De Productos AgropecuariosSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  4. Moore v. . GulleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
  5. Brewer v. CAROLINA COACH COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Sutton v. DukeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  2. Henry v. DeenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
  3. Johnson v. Herbie's PlaceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
  4. Hawkins v. WebsterCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  5. Gilmore v. GilmoreCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2013

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API