Seawell v. Chas. Cole &. Co. Inc
Decision Date | 16 November 1927 |
Docket Number | (No. 427.) |
Citation | 140 S.E. 85 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | SEAWELL. v. CHAS. COLE &. CO., Inc., et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Moore County; Stack, Judge.
Action by W. A. Seawell against Chas. Cole & Co., Inc., and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
H. F. Seawell & Son, of Carthage, for appellant.
Another branch of this matter was before this court. See Johnson, Adm'r, v. Leavitt, 188 N. C. 682, 125 S. E. 490.
The record discloses that the defendants' counsel No counsel appeared in this court for the defendant, and the demurrer was not renewed in this court. C. S. § 512, is as follows:
In Elam v. Barnes, 110 N. C. 73, 14 S. E. 621, the facts were similar; it is said, 110 N. C. at page 74:
In the Elam Case, supra, this court looked into the record and dismissed the action. In the present action, we will reiterate well-settled law in this jurisdiction:
"But when a case is presented on demurrer, we are required by the statute, C. S. § 535, to construe the complaint liberally, 'with a view to substantial justice between the parties, ' and in enforcing this provision we have adopted the rule 'that if in any portion of it or to any extent it presents facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, or if facts sufficient for that purpose can be fairly gathered from it, the pleading will stand, however inartificially it may...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Steele v. Locke Cotton Mills Co.
...to aver all the facts that can be implied by fair and reasonable intendment from the facts expressly stated. Seawell v. Chas. Cole & Co., 194 N.C. 546, 140 S.E. 85. But the rule of liberal construction can not be invoked to read into the complaint an essential fact which has been omitted fr......
-
Guilford Realty & Ins. Co. v. Blythe Bros. Co., 603
...Griffin v. Bank of Coleridge, 205 N.C. 253, 171 S.E. 71. G.S. § 1-128 applies to all demurrers, written or oral. Seawell v. Chas. Cole & Co., 194 N.C. 546, 140 S.E. 85; Adams v. Flora Macdonald College, 247 N.C. 648, 654, 101 S.E.2d 809. The court below did not disregard but overruled defen......
-
Duke v. Campbell
...Elam v. Barnes, 110 N.C. 73, 14 S.E. 621; Ball & Sheppard v. Paquin, 140 N.C. 83, 52 S.E. 410, 3 L.R.A.,N.S., 307; Seawell v. Chas. Cole & Co., 194 N.C. 546, 140 S.E. 85; Griffin v.Bank of Coleridge, 205 N.C. 253, 171 S.E. 71; Wilson v. Horton Motor Lines, 207 N.C. 263, 176 S.E. The statute......
-
Dependents v. Home
...This would seem to be the reason of the statute. At anyrate its provisions are clear, and should be observed." Seawell v. Cole & Co., 194 N. C. 546, 140 S. E. 85. The Industrial Commission alone finds the facts, and by analogy to the above decision I think that this action should not now be......