Legal Opinion

Little v. . Little

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 28, 1933PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeogdeN, J.

The defendants, having filed an answer to the merits, waived a defective statement of a good cause of action; that is to say, a demurrer ore tenus is not available after answer to the merits, merely for the reason that a good cause of action bas been defectively stated. Mizzell v. Ruffin, 118 N. C., 69, 23 S. E., 927; North Carolina Practice & Procedure by McIntosh, p. 454. Consequently, it becomes necessary to interpret the complaint. The deeds are not contained in the record, and there is no evidence of consideration except the allegation in the complaint that they recited a consideration…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Exum v. LynchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  2. Exum v. . LynchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  3. Helms v. Helms.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
  4. Mizzell v. . RuffinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
  5. Howard v. . TurnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1899

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
  2. Beacon Homes, Inc. v. HoltSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  3. Patterson v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  4. Pearce v. . PrivetteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  5. Edwards v. BattsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957

1 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