Legal Opinion

Hoover v. Crotts

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 8, 1950No. 387PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarnhill, J.

The exception to the refusal of the court to render judgment on the pleadings is untenable. Defendants denied default in the payment of rent and plead tender thereof under G-.S. 42-33. Thus it appears that all material facts are not admitted. Instead, the answer raises issues of fact for the jury. There can be no judgment for plaintiff on the pleadings unless the facts entitling plaintiff to relief are admitted, and no valid defense or plea in avoidance is asserted in the answer.

The plaintiff does not except to any particular finding of fact. She merely enters a broadside exception “to the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Rader v. Queen City Coach Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
  2. Russos v. . BaileySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  3. Roach v. . PritchettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  4. Midimis v. . MurrellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Erickson v. StarlingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  2. In Re BlalockSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  3. Bailey v. McPhersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  4. Milwaukee Insurance Co. v. McLean Trucking Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  5. Suits v. Old Equity Life Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955

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