McDowell v. Staley
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtDevin, J.
The defendants in their appeal raise two questions:
I. Did the court err in admitting only a portion of paragraph 3 of defendants’ amended answer? As the admission was of a distinct fact, to wit, that the ancestor from whom plaintiff derived title died seized of the land described, it was competent for the plaintiff to offer this without adding the other allegations in the paragraph in which defendants asserted title in themselves to the entire interest in the land. Lupton v. Day, 211 N.C. 443, 190 S.E. 722; Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Banking Co., 191 N.C. 500, 132 S.E. 468.
2. Were defendants…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Helms v. . GreenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- Sears, Roebuck Co. v. . Banking Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
- Lupton v. . DaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. TilleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- Madget v. JenkinsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1970
- State v. TilleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954