Farmers & Merchants Bank of Baltimore v. Board of Aldermen of City of Charlotte
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil Action, upon a bond, heard before his Honor, Judge ScheNck, at Spring Term, 1876, of Mecklenburg Superior Court. The plaintiff moved for judgment upon the ground that the answer filed was frivolous and irrelevant. The facts necessary to an understanding of the case are substantially stated in the opinion of the Court. The motion was overruled and th% plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtSettle, J.
The counsel' for both parties upon the argument here, stated that the sole question for this Court is— whether the answer is insufficient or frivolous ?
The alleged insufficiency is in that part of the answer which says that, “ the defendant has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief in regard to the truth of the allegations contained in the third section of the com-plaint; ” which third section is as follows: “That the same, (the note sued on,) was afterwards and before maturity, to-wit: .on the 12th of April, 1875, assigned and endorsed, for, value, by said Bank of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Erwin v. . LowerySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1870
- George W. Swepson v. . John C. HarveySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1872
3Cited by5 opinions
- Cobb v. Clegg.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Piedmont Wagon Co. v. ByrdSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
- Clark v. DillonNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1882
- Morgan v. . RoperSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
- Piedmont Wagon Co. v. ByrdSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896