Truelove v. Durham & Southern Railway Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBarnhill, J.
The function of a complaint is not the narration of the evidence but a statement of the material, essential or ultimate facts upon which the plaintiff’s claim to relief is founded. Winders v. Hill, 141 N. C., 694; Revis v. Asheville, 207 N. C., 237, 176 S. E., 738; Hosiery Mill v. Hosiery Mills, 198 N. C., 596, 152 S. E., 794; Hawkins v. Moss, ante, 95; McIntosh P. & P., 389, sec. 379. Only the facts to which the pertinent legal or equitable principles of law are to be applied should he stated. Winders v. Hill, supra; Revis v. Asheville, supra; Hawkins v. Moss, supra.
Actionable negligence…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Godwin v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
- Winders v. Hill.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- Revis v. City of AshevilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
- Tar Heel Hosiery Mill v. Durham Hosiery MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
3Cited by9 opinions
- Pinnix v. ToomeySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
- Tart v. RegisterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
- Fanelty v. Rogers Jewelers, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
- Griffin v. BlankenshipSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
- Long v. LoveSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.