Lamson Co. v. . Morehead
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtClakksoN, J.
The plaintiff in the petition distinctly alleges “that the said Lamson Company has no contractual relation whatsoever with the said Sinkoe Company.” We cannot see how the defendant can have E. I. and R. A. Sinkoe made parties to the action and then plead for plaintiff that the Sinkoes are solely responsible to it when the plaintiff says there is no contractual relation between it and the Sinkoes. Benevolent Assn. v. Heal, 194 N. C., 401. Then again, the court below sustained the demurrer filed by the Sinkoes. The plaintiff appealed. The receiver did not. We find no error in the court below…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Williams v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
- Lenoir v. Linville Improvement Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1900
- Michigan Sanitarium & Benevolent Ass'n v. NealSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
- Houser Ex Rel. Oakes v. BonsalSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Wooten v. S. R. Biggs Drug Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- North Butte Mining Co. v. TrippCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1941