Legal Opinion

Truelove v. Durham & Southern Railway Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 17, 1943PublishedCited by 9 opinions

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

  1. Godwin v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  2. Winders v. Hill.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  3. Revis v. City of AshevilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  4. Tar Heel Hosiery Mill v. Durham Hosiery MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Pinnix v. ToomeySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  2. Tart v. RegisterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  3. Fanelty v. Rogers Jewelers, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
  4. Griffin v. BlankenshipSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
  5. Long v. LoveSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949

4 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