Legal Opinion

Daniel v. Gardner

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 5, 1954No. 454PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.

Tbe statute, G.S. 1-153, under which the defendant’s motion to strike was made, provides: “If irrelevant or redundant matter is inserted in a pleading, it may be stricken out on motion of any person aggrieved thereby, . . The defendant lodged his motion before answer, demurrer, or extension of time to plead. This being so, he may claim the benefits of the statute as a matter of right, rather than of grace. Brown v. Hall, 226 N.C. 732, 40 S.E. 2d 412; Hill v. Stansbury, 221 N.C. 339, 20 S.E. 2d 308.

As bearing upon the interpretation and application of this statute, these propositions may be…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Council v. Dickerson's, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  2. Rhodes v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  3. Penn Dixie Lines, Inc. v. GrannickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  4. Scott v. . BryanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  5. Call v. StroudSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Pinnix v. ToomeySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  2. Hinson v. DawsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  3. Greene v. Charlotte Chemical Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
  4. Lutz Industries, Inc. v. Dixie Home StoresSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  5. RH Bouligny, Inc. v. United Steelworkers of Amer.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1967

29 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