Ledford v. Marion Transp. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 March 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 166,166 |
| Citation | 237 N.C. 317,74 S.E.2d 653 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | LEDFORD, v. MARION TRANSP. CO. |
Everette C. Carnes, Marion, for defendant, appellant.
Proctor & Dameron, Marion, and Hamrick & Jones, Rutherfordton, for plaintiff, appellee.
No useful purpose would be served by setting out in detail the specific allegations of the complaint challenged by the motion to strike. However, if it be conceded that the complaint is not as concise and devoid of repetition as it might be in stating the plaintiff's cause of action, we can see nothing in it that will be harmful or prejudicial to defendant's rights.
In Hinson v. Britt, 232 N.C. 379, 61 S.E. 2d 185, 187, we said: , citing Teasley v. Teasley, 205 N.C. 604, 172 S.E. 197; Neal v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp., 235 N.C. 225, 69 S.E.2d 319; Terry v. Capital Ice & Coal Co., 231 N.C. 103, 55 S.E.2d 926; Hawkins v. Moss, 222 N.C. 95, 21 S.E.2d 873; Hill v. Stansbury, 221 N.C. 339, 20 S.E.2d 308; McDonald v. Zimmerman, 206 N.C. 746, 175 S.E. 92.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pinnix v. Toomey
...Therefore, the exceptions relating thereto are overruled under application of the doctrine applied in Ledford v. Marion Transportation Co., 237 N.C. 317, 74 S.E.2d 653, and Hinson v. Britt, 232 N.C. 379, 61 S.E.2d 185. See also Daniel v. Gardner, 240 N.C. 249, 81 S.E.2d 660. 2. The refusal ......
-
Daniel v. Gardner
...be prejudiced by the rest of the challenged averments. Therefore, under application of the doctrine applied in Ledford v. Marion Transp. Co., supra, 237 N.C. 317, 74 S.E.2d 653, and Hinson v. Britt, supra, 232 N.C. 379, 61 S.E.2d 185, the defendant's remaining exceptions are The plaintiff c......
-
Wood's Will, In re, 105
...rule is that the denial of a motion to strike will not be disturbed when appellant is not prejudiced thereby. Ledford v. Marion Transportation Co., 237 N.C. 317, 74 S.E.2d 653, and cases cited. Here our examination of the petition leaves the impression that no harm in law will come to the r......
-
Hamilton v. Hamilton, 241
...retention or deletion of the allegation or allegations complained of would prejudice the rights of such party. Ledford v. Marion Transportation Co., 237 N.C. 317, 74 S.E.2d 653; Hinson v. Britt, 232 N.C. 379, 61 S.E.2d 185. Certainly, the plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the allegation t......