Citizens Bank of Marshall v. Gahagan
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.
The motion of Bonnie Gahagan that she be eliminated as a defendant seems well founded and should have been allowed. Winders v. Southerland, 174 N. C., 235, 93 S. E., 726; Worth v. Trust Co., 152 N. C., 242, 67 S. E., 590. Indeed, it is not alleged in the complaint, other than inferentially perhaps, that any of the defendants ever qualified as executors under the will of Wade Gahagan, deceased.
The complaint alleges no cause of action against the defendants, individually. Hence, the demurrer thus interposed should have been sustained.
Nor is it thought that sufficient facts are stated to…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Phifer v. . BerrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- Rigsbee v. . BrogdenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Worth v. Knickerbocker Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
- Winders v. . SoutherlandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
- Oliver v. . Hood, Comr. of BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Hayes v. City of WilmingtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- Skipper v. CheathamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
- Shives v. SampleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Myrtle Apartments, Inc. v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
- Hill v. . StansburySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.