Legal Opinion

Musten v. Musten

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided June 6, 1978No. 7721DC600PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

WEBB, Judge.

We hold that the order of the district court be reversed.

At the outset, we hold that the order requiring the defendant to vacate the premises affects a substantial right and is ap-pealable to this Court. G.S. 7A-27(d)(1). See Peeler v. Peeler, 7 N.C. App. 456, 172 S.E. 2d 915 (1970).

It appears that in her complaint the plaintiff has stated a claim for divorce from bed and board. It also appears that in the same count she may have stated a claim alleging that she has title to the real property in question and is entitled to possession of it. This would be a suit in ejectment.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Scott Poultry Company v. Bryan Oil CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  2. Sprinkle v. SprinkleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972
  3. Peeler v. PeelerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970
  4. Armstrong Ex Rel. Martin v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
  5. Taylor v. . TaylorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Preiss v. Wine and Design FranchiseNorth Carolina Business Court · 2018

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

Powered by the Exa API