Legal Opinion

H. L. Vollers Co. v. Todd

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 15, 1937PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Pee Curiam.

While the complaint does not allege two causes of action, each separate and apart from the other, as required by the Rules of Practice (200 N. C., 826, Rule 20, subsection 2), but alleges all of the facts as if they constituted one cause of action, it in fact states two separate and distinct causes.

1. It alleges that L. D. Todd, administrator of the estate of E. A. Todd, has filed a false final account, has deducted commissions to which he is not entitled, has failed to make a fair and equal distribution of assets of the estate according to the priorities provided by statute, but…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Leach v. . PageSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  2. Barkley v. McClung Realty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  3. Federal Land Bank of Columbia v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  4. Pearson v. WestbrookSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Burleson v. . BurlesonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  2. Davis v. . WhitehurstSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  3. Moore County v. . BurnsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  4. Davis v. DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  5. Davis v. SingletonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963

4 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