Legal Opinion

Mercer v. Hilliard

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 18, 1959No. 249PublishedCited by 16 opinions

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

  1. Hayes v. City of WilmingtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  2. Penn Dixie Lines, Inc. v. GrannickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  3. Jenkins v. FieldsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  4. Brown v. E. H. Clement Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  5. 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

  1. Hardin v. American Mutual Fire Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  2. Steele v. Moore-Flesher Hauling CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  3. Sharpe v. PughSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  4. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF WILSON v. WootenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  5. Kleibor v. RogersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965

11 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