Tyndall v. Triangle Mobile Homes, Inc.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtRodmaN, J.
The motion to vacate the judgment was based on factual allegations which, if established, would compel the court to grant *469defendant an opportunity to be heard on the question of liability to plaintiff. Plaintiff’s denial of the facts stated in defendant’s motion presented a question of fact to be decided by the court. Menzel v. Menzel, 250 N.C. 649, 110 S.E. 2d 333; Harrington v. Rice, 245 N.C. 640, 97 S.E. 2d 239; Banks v. Lane, 171 N.C. 505, 88 S.E. 754; Simmons v. Box Co., 148 N.C. 344, 62 S.E. 435.
Both the judge presiding over the Municipal-County Court and the judge presiding over the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Holden v. HoldenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- Harrington v. RiceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- Dunn v. . WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- St. George v. HansonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- Logan v. SprinkleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Parris v. Garner Commercial Disposal, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
- Sun Bank/South Florida v. TracyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991