Legal Opinion
Matthews v. Matthews
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Decided August 14, 1968No. 68SC214PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBrock, J.
It is elementary that a demurrer admits; for'the purpose of testing the sufficiency of thé pleading, the truth of factual' averments well stated, and relevant inferences of fact reasonably deducible -therefrom. But a demurrer does not admit inferences or 'conclu sions of law. Corprew v. Chemical Corp., 271 N.C. 485, 157 S.E. 2d 98. A valuable consideration is necessary to the validity of a contract not under seal, and it is necessary for the pleader to allege such facts as will enable the Court to see that there was a valuable consideration. McIntosh, N. C. Practice 2d, Sec. 1067.
Therefore,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Corprew v. Geigy Chemical CorporationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- Archbell v. . ArchbellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
- Sprinkle v. PonderSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
3Cited by8 opinions
- Home Elec. Co. of Lenoir, Inc. v. HALL & UNDERDOWN HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING CO.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
- Citrini v. GoodwinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
- Davis v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
- Dawbarn v. DawbarnCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006
- Thompson v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.