Farthing v. Carrington
Supreme Court of North Carolina
ControveRst, submitted without action, heard before Green, J., at March Term, 1895, of Durham Superior Court, and from the judgment rendered therein the plaintiff appealed. T|ie appeal was docketed in this Court on the-day of-, 1895, after the cases from the 5th District had been disposed of, and by consent was heard on the --- day of April, 1895. The submission to the Court below was as follows: Gf.
Read the full summary
ControveRst, submitted without action, heard before Green, J., at March Term, 1895, of Durham Superior Court, and from the judgment rendered therein the plaintiff appealed. T|ie appeal was docketed in this Court on the-day of-, 1895, after the cases from the 5th District had been disposed of, and by consent was heard on the --- day of April, 1895. The submission to the Court below was as follows: Gf. C. Farthing, Hiram Jones and "W. T. Carrington, being parties to a question in difference which might be the subject of a civil action, present a submission of the same to the Court for its…
1DissentAvery, J.
The.statute (Code, Sec. 567) was enacted in order (said Pearson, C. J., in McKethan v. Ray, 71 N. C., 165) “to dispense with the formality of summons, complaint and answer.” It would manifestly lead to absurdity to hold that the “controversy without action” was intended to include any other than a legal controversy, if the statute did not relieve us of discussing the general principle by declaring in plain terms that it must *327be between “ parties to a question in difference, which might be the subject of a civil action.” It follows necessarily that before the Court can consider such a…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hoyt Post v. CampauMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Tucker v. . BakerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
- Lassiter v. . RoperSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
- McKethan v. . RaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1874
- Little v. . ThorneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.