Amazon Cotton Mills Co. v. Duplan Corp.
| Decision Date | 10 April 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 381,381 |
| Citation | 97 S.E.2d 449,246 N.C. 88 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | AMAZON COTTON MILLS COMPANY, v. The DUPLAN CORPORATION. |
Ratcliff, Vaughn, Hudson, Ferrell & Carter, Winston-Salem, by R. M. Stockton, Jr., Winston-Salem, for defendant, appellant.
James L. Rankin, Chester, Pa., E. T. Bost, Jr., Concord, W. H. Beckerdite, Kannapolis, by Walser & Brinkley, Don A. Walser, Lexington, for plaintiff, appellee.
In the petition to rehear the plaintiff contended this Court committed error in ordering the action dismissed. The reason assigned is that the motion to dismiss was not passed on by the superior court and not the subject of an exceptive assignment here.
To continue reading
Request your trial
5 cases
-
State ex rel. East Lenoir Sanitary Dist. v. City of Lenoir
...our duty, ex mero motu, to take note of that fact. Caldlaw, Inc., v. Caldwell, 248 N.C. 235, 102 S.E.2d 829; Amazon Cotton Mills Co. v. Duplan Corp., 246 N.C. 88, 97 S.E.2d 449; Maola Ice Cream Co. v. Maola Milk & Ice Cream Co., 238 N.C. 317, 77 S.E.2d 910; Aiken v. Sanderford, 236 N.C. 760......
-
Bailey v. McGill, 175
...a defective cause of action against the above named two physicians, the motion by them to dismiss is allowed. Amazon Cotton Mills Co. v. Duplan Corp., 246 N.C. 88, 97 S.E.2d 449; Scott v. Statesville Plywood & Veneer Co., 240 N.C. 73, 81 S.E.2d We are next confronted with the question as to......
-
Beam v. Almond, 194
...further in the case, for if he proves everything that he alleges he must eventually fail in the action.' Amazon Cotton Mills Co. v. Duplan Corp., 246 N.C. 88, 97 S.E.2d 449; Maola Ice Cream Co. of North Carolina v. Mayola Milk & Ice Cream Co., 238 N.C. 317, 77 S.E.2d It seems apparent from ......
-
Tuwamo v. Tuwamo
...ex mero motu. ” Narron v. Union Camp Corp., 81 N.C.App. 263, 267, 344 S.E.2d 64, 67 (1986). See also Amazon Cotton Mills Co. v. Duplan Corp., 246 N.C. 88, 89, 97 S.E.2d 449, 449 (1957) (“ ‘If the cause of action, as stated by the plaintiff, is inherently bad, why permit him to proceed furth......
Request a trial to view additional results