Legal Opinion

Widenhouse v. Russ

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 31, 1951No. 377PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWinboRNE, J.

The first assignment of error presented by appellant, based upon her exception to the ruling of the trial court in striking out all of paragraphs two, three and five of her further answer and defense is well taken.

While the averments in paragraphs two and three are in the main evidentiary, they were not stricken for that cause. And the averments in paragraph five are sufficient to constitute a denial that she was indebted to defendant Euss in any amount on account of construction of building in question, and to admit of proof in the respects averred.

The statute G-.S. 44-6 in pertinent part…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Schnepp v. . RichardsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  2. Borden Brick & Tile Co. v. PulleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  3. Atlas Powder Co. v. DentonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
  4. Boyett v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1915

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Frank H. Conner Co. v. Spanish Inns Charlotte, Ltd.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
  2. Metropolitan Life Insurance v. RowellCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
  3. Michael Flynn Manufacturing Co. v. J. L. Coe Construction Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1963

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API