Legal Opinion

Joyner v. P. L. Woodard & Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 16, 1931PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

The action of the trial court in treating the plaintiff’s anticipatory allegation in regard to the release as surplusage, and ordering it stricken out, is supported by decisions elsewhere. Hedlun v. Holy Terror Min. Co., 16 S. D., 261, 92 N. W., 31; Trotter v. Mutual R. F. L. Assoc., 9 S. D., 596, 70 N. W., 843, 62 Am. St. Rep., 887; 53 C. J., 1271. And under authority of Killian v. Hanna, 193 N. C., 17, 131 S. E., 246, the demurrer might have been overruled without more. McIntosh N. C. Practice and Procedure, 412. But as no harm can come from the judgment as entered, it would serve no useful…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. St. Louis, Kennett & Southeastern Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  2. State Ex Rel. Greene County v. National BankSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  3. Trotter v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'nSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Hedlun v. Holy Terror Min. Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1902
  5. Dixon v. GreenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. McKinney v. City of High PointSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  2. Bailey v. McGillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  3. Dayton v. . AshevilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
  4. Mebane Lumber Co. v. Avery & Bullock Builders, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  5. Scott v. Ætna Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933

5 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