Legal Opinion

Hagedorn v. . Hagedorn

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 20, 1936PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

We are precluded from deciding the questions debated on brief and argument, i.e., the power of the court to order Heyman Hagedorn, individually or as treasurer of the corporate defendant, to appear for examination under C. S., 900, and to strike out the answer under authority of C. S., 903, for failure to comply, because of the alternative condition attached to the order, which renders it void. Myers v. Barnhardt, 202 N. C., 49, 161 S. E., 715; Flinchum v. Doughton, 200 N. C., 770, 158 S. E., 486; Lloyd v. Lbr. Co., 167 N. C., 97, 83 S. E., 248; Strickland v. Cox, 102 N. C., 411, 9 S. E., 414.

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Harrell v. . WelsteadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  2. Dunn v. . Barnes, Adm'rSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1875
  3. Strickland v. CoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
  4. Abbitt v. . GregorySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  5. Myers v. . BarnhardtSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Hagedorn v. . HagedornSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  2. Cassidy v. CheekSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  3. McCraw v. HamrickCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
  4. State v. . BrooksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  5. Southland Nat'l Ins. Corp. v. LindbergCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2023

1 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