Bohannon v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
Clarkson, J.(1) The plaintiff contends that the appeal from the order of examination is premature. We cannot .so hold under the facts and circumstances of this case.
In Ward v. Martin, 175 N. C., 287 (289-290), is the following: “A motion was made to dismiss this appeal on the ground that it is premature. There are decisions of this Court holding that a party cannot appeal from an order to appear before the clerk to be examined under oath concerning the matters set out in the pleadings. Pender v. Mallett, 122 N. C., 163; Holt v. Warehouse Co., 116 N. C., 480; Vann v. Lawrence, 111 N. C., 32.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Angle v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Mitchell v. LangleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1915
- Bailey v. . MatthewsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Vann v. . LawrenceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1892
- Holt v. Southern Finishing & Warehouse Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Spartan Equipment Co. v. Air Placement Equipment Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- DeWitt v. DuceSupreme Court of Florida · 1981
- Beckwith v. DahlCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Nemeth v. BanhalmiAppellate Court of Illinois · 1981
- CRY v. CoteSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1979
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.