Legal Opinion

Cahoon v. . Everton

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 5, 1924PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClarkson, J.

The defendant takes the position that the complaint was not verified according to law, as the plaintiff, when he swore to the complaint, did not subscribe his name to the oath. We do not think this necessary, under the statute, although the better practice is to have it subscribed. C. S., 529, is as follows:

“The verification must be in substance that the same is true, to the knowledge of the person making it, except as to those matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters he believes it to be true; and must be by affidavit of the party, or, if there are several parties…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Currie v. Golconda Mining & Milling Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  2. Alford v. . McCormacSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
  3. Lerch Bros., Inc. v. McKinneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
  4. Chesson v. . LynchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Peebles v. MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  2. Aldridge v. Greensboro Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  3. Simms v. . SampsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  4. Bailey v. DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
  5. Rich v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956

7 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