Hull, Lanier & Co. v. Carter
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil ActioN tried at Spring Term, 1880, of Buncombe Superior Court, before Schenck, J. There were three actions pending between the parties on appeal from judgments rendered by a justice of the peace. By consent of parties, they were consolidated-and pleadings filed. The plaintiffs’ counsel moved to strike out the answer as frivolous and irrelevant and for judgment. The court overruled the motion and the plaintiffs appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtDillard, J.
An answer should contain a denial of the material facts or some of them in the plaintiffs case, without which his cause of action could not be maintained, or set up new matter constituting a defence formerly a plea in bar or dilatory, or making a case for affirmative relief by counter-claim, C. C. P., §§ 100, 101, and sub-divisions under each. If the answer present new matter which is pertinent and bona fide relied on, as looking to-and making up á complete-defence, then the question is as to its legal sufficiency to constitute the supposed defence, and the regular mode to settle the question…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Strong v. . SproulNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Youngs v. . KentNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Erwin v. . LowerySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1870
- George W. Swepson v. . John C. HarveySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1872
- Womble v. . FrapsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1877
3Cited by6 opinions
- New Bern Banking & Trust Co. v. DuffySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Walters v. . StarnesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
- Turlington v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
- J. S. Mayfield Lumber Co. v. MannSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Bank v. . AtkinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.