Wall v. England
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtWinboeNe, J.
This appeal turns in the main on a procedural question. It is observed that the judgment of Judge Rudisill, striking out the averments of defendant’s further answer on the ground that same is irrelevant, improper and prejudicial to plaintiff, was entered in term time, at a term of Superior Court, over which he was the presiding judge, with jurisdiction and power to hear and pass upon the motion to strike. G.S. 1-153. This Court held in Commrs. v. Piercy, 72 N.C. 181, that the Superior Court has power to strike out an answer whenever it appears to the satisfaction of the Court that it is…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. . LeaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- Caldwell v. . CaldwellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- Revis v. . RamseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- State v. Standard Oil Co. of New JerseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
- Commissioners of Yancey Co. v. PiercySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1875
3Cited by9 opinions
- Calloway v. Ford Motor CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- Greene v. Charlotte Chemical Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
- Gibbs v. Carolina Power & Light CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Carr v. Great Lakes Carbon Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
- Michigan National Bank v. HannerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.