Mercer v. Hilliard
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBobbitt, J.
The sole ground of .plaintiff's motion is that the facts alleged by defendants do not constitute a legal defense to plaintiff’s action. In substance, if not in form, plaintiff’® motion is a demurrer to defendants’ “First Further Answer and Defense,” in its entirety, and will be so considered. Hayes v. Wilmington, 243 N.C. 525, 91 S.E. 2d 673; Etheridge v. Light Co., 249 N.C. 367, 106 S.E. 2d 560.
G.S. 1-141, m pertinent part, provided: “The plaintiff may in all oases demur to an answer containing new matter, where upon its face, it does not constitute a . . . defense; and he may demur to one…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hayes v. City of WilmingtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- Penn Dixie Lines, Inc. v. GrannickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Jenkins v. FieldsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- Brown v. E. H. Clement Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- Williams Ex Rel. Williams v. Union County Hospital Ass'nSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Hardin v. American Mutual Fire Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
- Steele v. Moore-Flesher Hauling CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Sharpe v. PughSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF WILSON v. WootenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
- Kleibor v. RogersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.