Legal Opinion

Cotton Mills v. . Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 27, 1940PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stacy, 0. J.

As tbe preliminary representations constitute a part of the alleged fraud, the motion to strike was properly denied. Trust Co. v. Dunlop, 214 N. C., 196, 198 S. E., 645; Hildebrand v. Tel. Co., 216 N. C., 235, 4 S. E. (2d), 439. The action is one sounding in tort.

The demurrer of the individual defendants was likewise properly overruled. It is alleged that they were officers and agents of the corporate defendant and “actually caused and participated in the wrongful acts” of their principal, which are specifically set out. This saves the complaint from fatal infirmity as to the…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Blackmore v. . WindersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
  2. Hoke v. . GlennSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  3. Brewer v. . WynneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  4. Insurance Co. v. . McCrawSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
  5. Baker v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Rhodes v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  2. Phelps-Dickson Builders, LLC v. Amerimann PartnersCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
  3. Fox v. Southern Appliances, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  4. Weavil v. MyersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  5. Shives v. SampleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953

18 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