Ball v. Paquin.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
ActioN by Leroy Ball and another against Paul Paquin and wife, beard by Judge M. H. Justice and a jury, at the September Term, 1904, of the Superior Court of Buncombe.
Read the full summary
ActioN by Leroy Ball and another against Paul Paquin and wife, beard by Judge M. H. Justice and a jury, at the September Term, 1904, of the Superior Court of Buncombe. The plaintiffs allege that the feme defendant, Hannah B. Paquin, was on or before October 15, 1900, the owner of a lot in the city of Asheville, on Haywood street, known as the “Coffin lot;” that she and the male defendant had begun the erection of a house on the lot to be used as a residence, to be fitted up with lavatories and equipped with a steam-heating apparatus and a number of tubs for both- hot and cold baths; that said…
1Opinion of the Court
Connor, J.,
after stating the facts: The demurrer is general in that it does not specify wherein the complaint fails, to state facts sufficient to constitute-a cause of action. This, under The Code practice, is not allowable. His Honor could have overruled it for that cause. Elam v. Barnes, 110 N. C., 73. We assume, however, that the real ground of the demurrer was that the feme defendant was a married woman. Baker v. Garris, 108 N. C., 218.
The difficulty encountered by the defendant is that it does not appear, on the face of the complaint, that she was a married woman at the date of the…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Farthing v. . ShieldsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- Dougherty v. . SprinkleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1883
- Pippen v. . WessonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1876
- Scott v. . BattleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
- Flaum v. Wallace Bros.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.