Legal Opinion

Poovey v. City of Hickory

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 4, 1936PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CoNNOR, J".

It appears from a recital in the order from which the plaintiff has appealed to this Court, that the motion of the defendant was allowed by the court in its discretion. The motion was made in writing before the time allowed by statute for answering the complaint had expired. The motion was not addressed to the discretion of the court, but was made by the defendant as a matter of right. The order allowing the motion.is therefore subject to review by this Court on plaintiff’s appeal, notwithstanding the recital therein that the motion was allowed by the court in its discretion. C.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Tar Heel Hosiery Mill v. Durham Hosiery MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  2. Anderson v. Town of WaynesvilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Rhodes v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  2. Scott v. Statesville Plywood & Veneer Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  3. Parrish v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  4. Brown v. . HallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  5. Hill v. . StansburySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942

14 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