Alspaugh v. . Winstead

79 N.C. 526
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 5, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 79 N.C. 526 (Alspaugh v. . Winstead) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alspaugh v. . Winstead, 79 N.C. 526 (N.C. 1878).

Opinion

Smith, C. J.

(After stating the case as above.) The only question before us is as to the form of the verification to the complaint, and its compliance with the requirements of the Code: — The complaint shall contain a plain and concise statement of the facts constituting a cause of action, without unnecessary repetition, and each material allegation shall be distinctly numbered. C. C. P., § 93(2). The verification must be to the effect that the same (the pleading) is true to the knowledge of the person making it, except as to those matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, he believes it to be true. Ibid. § 117.

These seem to be the only provisions of the Code applicable to the subject. The plaintiff swears that the facts set out in his complaint, except, &o., are true, that is, that they are truly stated, — an expression equivalent to an averment of the truth of the complaint itself. We do not concur with *528 the defendants’ counsel in his criticism put upon the words of the statute, and in the distinction he drew between a statement of facts and the facts themselves. The argument was that facts are truths, and that to say a fact is true, is but asserting that truth is true — a meaningless proposition. The form of the verification in our opinion admits no such absurd interpretation of its words, and their fair and reasonable meaning is that the facts, as stated, are correctly and truly stated ; and this is all the Code requires. Besides, the Code is not rigid in exacting strict compliance with its very words. It prescribes the oath and gives the formula for it, but other words, substantially the same, will do. The Code only requires that they should “ be to the same effect.” We have been referred to no adjudication, and we presume none can be found to sustain the defendants’ exception to the form of expression used in this case. In our opinion the complaint was properly verified, and the plaintiff was entitled to judgment according to his complaint. As it is, final judgment will be rendered here as it ought to have been rendered in the Court below.

Pee, Curiam. Judgment accordingly.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Davis v. . Storage Co.
120 S.E. 462 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)
Davis v. Greensboro Warehouse & Storage Co.
186 N.C. 676 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)
R. R. Connection Case
49 S.E. 191 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1904)
Corporation Commission v. Railroad
49 S.E. 191 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1904)
Cook v. American Exchange Bank
41 S.E. 67 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1902)
Payne v. . Boyd
34 S.E. 631 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1899)
Cole v. . Boyd
34 S.E. 557 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1899)
Phifer v. Travellers Insurance Co.
31 S.E. 716 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1898)
Perras v. Denver & Rio Grande Railroad
5 Colo. App. 21 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1894)
Griffin v. Asheville Light Co.
16 S.E. 423 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1892)
Alford v. . McCormac
90 N.C. 151 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1884)
Commercial National Bank of Charlotte v. Hutchison
87 N.C. 22 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1882)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
79 N.C. 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alspaugh-v-winstead-nc-1878.