Dillingham v. Kligerman
| Decision Date | 19 March 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 95,95 |
| Citation | 69 S.E.2d 500,235 N.C. 298 |
| Parties | DILLINGHAM, v. KLIGERMAN et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Scott Dillingham, Asheville, plaintiff, appellant, in pro. per.
Shuford, Hodges & Robinson, Asheville, for defendants Oscar Pitts and Elon Smawley, appellees.
Narvel J. Crawford, Asheville, for other defendants, appellees.
There is no allegation in the complaint that any one of the defendants whose demurrers were sustained has or claims any interest in the lands referred to in the complaint, nor that any one of these defendants is in anywise obligated to the plaintiff. It nowhere appears on the face of the complaint that the plaintiff is entitled to relief of any sort against any of these defendants. Besides, it appears upon the face of the record that there was no acknowledgment or proof of the execution of the contract by Mrs. Minnie Levy (now Mrs. Minnie Levy Kligerman), the seller who allegedly contracted to convey the disputed lands to the plaintiff. Therefore, the court properly sustained the demurrers filed by the appellees. As to them, the complaint was wholly insufficient to allege a cause of action. The statute, G.S. § 1-151, which requires liberal construction in favor of the pleader, neither requires nor permits the court to construe into a pleading that which it does not contain. Jones v. Jones Lewis Furniture Co., 222 N.C. 439, 23 S.E.2d 309; Citizens Bank of Marshall v. Gahagan, 210 N.C. 464, 187 S.E. 580.
The question whether on demurrer sustained the action was dismissed prematurely is not presented for decision. This question, if raised by the exception to the judgment, not being discussed in appellant's brief nor supported by authority, will be treated as abandoned. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N.C. 562 et seq. See also Gray v. Cartwright, 174 N.C. 49, at page 52, 93 S.E. 432; State v. Howley, 220 N.C. 113, 16 S.E.2d 705; Maynard v. Holder, 219 N.C. 470, 14 S.E.2d 415.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peek v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.
...stated or authority cited, will be taken as abandoned'. See State v. Cole, 241 N.C. 576, at page 581, 86 S.E.2d 203; Dillingham v. Kligerman, 235 N.C. 298, 69 S.E.2d 500. In any event, the evidence to which these assignments relate was relevant and competent on the issue of Assignment of Er......
-
State v. Smith
...driving case will be treated as abandoned. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N.C. 544 at page 563; Dillingham v. Kligerman, 235 N.C. 298, 69 S.E.2d 500. In the trial below we find no error of law; therefore the judgments will be No error. ...
-
Dowdy v. Southern Ry. Co.
...not been set out in the plaintiffs' brief. They are deemed abandoned. Rule 28 Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court; Dillingham v. Kligerman, 235 N.C. 298, 69 S.E.2d 500. The remaining assignments of errors Nos. 5 and 6 are founded on exceptions challenging the rulings of the Court below i......
-
Thomas & Howard Co. of Shelby v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co.
...required to construe the complaint liberally, we are not permitted to read into it facts which it does not contain. Dillingham v. Kligerman, 235 N.C. 298, 69 S.E.2d 500; Jones v. Jones Lewis Furniture Co., 222 N.C. 439, 23 S.E.2d The complaint attempts to allege a good cause of action, but ......