Legal Opinion

Oakley v. Texas Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 6, 1953No. 737PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDeviN, C. J.

The defendant did not demur to the complaint, but demurred to the reply as having failed to set forth facts sufficient, as against the plea of the statute of limitations, to show the action was instituted within the time limited.

The theory of the demurrer is that the complaint, though alleging the injury was due to defendant’s negligence, sets out a case of continuing trespass, and that under the statute, G.S. 1-52 (3), the action therefor must have been commenced “within three years from the original trespass, and not thereafter”; that the plaintiff has fixed November, 1948, as the first…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Blackmore v. . WindersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
  2. Ivester v. City of Winston-SalemSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
  3. Sample v. John L. Roper Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
  4. Anderson v. Town of WaynesvilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  5. Lightner v. City of RaleighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Wilson v. McLeod Oil Co., Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1990
  2. Singleton v. Haywood Electric Membership Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2003
  3. Haywood Street Redevelopment Corp., Inc. v. Harry S. Peterson, Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995
  4. Singleton v. Haywood Electric Membership Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002
  5. Singleton v. Haywood Electric Membership Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2003

2 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