Legal Opinion

GENERAL TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY v. Distributors, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 16, 1959No. 235PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBobbitt, J.

The demurrer does not challenge defendant’s counterclaim on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of •aotion against plaintiff. Nor does it challenge defendant’s counterclaim on the ground that it united, but did not separately state, two causes of action. G.S. 1-123; Heath v. Kirkman, 240 N.C. 303, 306, 82 S.E. 2d 104. The phrase “misjoinder of causes of action,” as used in the demurrer, refers to plaintiff’s contention that “the matters alleged in defendant’s counterclaim are foreign to the subject action in time and substance . . .”

Plaintiff’s contention…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Guerry v. American Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  2. Heath v. KirkmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  3. Smith v. French.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  4. Garrett v. RoseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  5. Schnepp v. . RichardsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. General Tire and Rubber Co. v. Distributors, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  2. Burton v. DixonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  3. Perfecting Service Co. v. Product Development & Sales Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  4. EAST COAST OIL COMPANY v. FairCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1968
  5. General Tire and Rubber Co. v. Distributors, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1962

2 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