Ledford v. Marion Transportation Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtDeNNY, J.
No useful purpose would be served by setting out in detail the specific allegations of the complaint challenged by the motion to strike. However, if it be conceded that the complaint is not as concise and devoid of repetition as it might be in stating the plaintiff’s cause of action, we can see nothing in it that will be harmful or prejudicial to defendant’s rights.
In Hinson v. Britt, 232 N.C. 379, 61 S.E. 2d 185, we said: “This Court does not correct errors of the Superior Court unless such errors preju-dicially affect the substantial rights of the party appealing. Hence, the denying or…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hinson v. BrittSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
- Hill v. . StansburySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
- Hawkins v. . MossSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
- Terry v. Capital Ice & Coal Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
- McDonald v. . ZimmermanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Pinnix v. ToomeySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
- Daniel v. GardnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- In Re the Last Will & Testament of WoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- Hamilton v. HamiltonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
- Ammons v. LaytonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.