Legal Opinion

Fleming v. Holleman

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 12, 1925PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClaeksoN, J.

The consolidation of the two actions which defendants assign as error, we cannot so hold. Defendants did not except to the order, although plaintiffs did. The jury having found that Mrs. Vance Fleming was not injured by the negligence of the defendant and awarded her no damages, we think, on the whole record, defendants have not been prejudiced by the consolidation, or their rights injuriously affected. The principle laid down in Ins. Co. v. R. R., 179 N. C., p. 260, is correct: “The object of consolidating two- or more actions is to avoid a multiplicity of suits, to guard against oppression…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. SimpsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1901

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Abbitt v. . GregorySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  2. Butner v. . SpeaseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  3. Kanoy v. HinshawSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  4. Luttrell v. . HardinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  5. In Re Will of AtkinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945

13 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