Furr v. Simpson, 294

• Decision Date: 24 July 1967
• Docket Number: No. 294,294
• Citation: 271 N.C. 221,155 S.E.2d 746
• Parties: Helen W. FURR, Plaintiff, v. John Edgar SIMPSON, Jr., and Snyder Paper Company, a corporation, OriginalDefendants, and Ronald P. Baird, Additional Defendant.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Page 746

155 S.E.2d 746

271 N.C. 221

Helen W. FURR, Plaintiff, v. John Edgar SIMPSON, Jr., and Snyder Paper Company, a corporation, OriginalDefendants and Ronald P. Baird, Additional Defendant.

No. 294.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 24, 1967.

Welling & Miller, Charlotte, for plaintiff appellee.

Carpenter, Webb & Golding, by Fred C. Meekins and William B. Webb, Charlotte, for John Edgar Simpson, Jr. and Snyder Paper Company, a corporation, original defendants.

SHARP, Justice.

The general rule seems to be that orders requiring, or refusing to require, a party to answer questions in a pretrial examination are not immediately appealable. Annot., Appealability of order pertaining to pretrial examination, discovery, interrogatories, production of books and papers, or the like, 37 A.L.R.2d 586 (1954); 4 Am.Jur., 2d, Appeal and Error § 79 (1962). Appellee's contention that this appeal should be dismissed as premature, however, is rendered feckless by our order allowing certiorari. When certiorari is granted, the case is before us in all respects as an appeal. Williams v. North Carolina State Board of Education, 266 N.C. 761, 147 S.E.2d 381.

'After the 'examining party' and 'the person to be examined' have both filed their pleadings, 'an examination is a matter of right, and may be had as provided by G.S. 1--568.11. '' Aldridge v. Hasty, 240 N.C. 353, 356, 82 S.E.2d 331, 335. Defendants' sole purpose in examining plaintiff was to obtain evidence to be used at the trial. G.S. § 1--568.3(2). The only way in which defendants can obtain the name under which plaintiff was first treated for a condition which she contends was aggravated by the accident in suit is to learn the name of the man to whom she was then married. Without it, as defendants point out, they can make no 'exploration of previous accidents and injuries' to the portions of her body 'which are the subject matter of the plaintiff's claim for damages.' Patently, if their investigation is to be of any use to defendants, it must be made before trial, and, as a practical matter, the only way they can obtain the name of plaintiff's former husband is by a pretrial examination of plaintiff. She was born and educated in Illinois. She has lived in North Carolina only four years. She came to this State from Missouri, where she had lived for five years. Her first breast operation was performed in Salt Lake City, Utah.

There would appear to be no legitimate reason why plaintiff should not...