Amazon Cotton Mills Co. v. Duplan Corp.

97 S.E.2d 449, 246 N.C. 88, 1957 N.C. LEXIS 365
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided April 10, 1957·No. 381·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

*89 Per Curiam.

In the petition to rehear the plaintiff contended this Court committed error in ordering the action dismissed. The reason assigned is that the motion to dismiss was not passed on by the Superior Court and not the subject of an exceptive assignment here.

This Court’s decision was based on the -view that the plaintiff stated a defective cause of action which the Court had the power to dismiss ex mero motu. “If the cause of action, as stated by the plaintiff, is inherently bad, why permit him to proceed further in the case, for if he proves everything that he alleges he must eventually fail in the action.” Ice Cream Co. v. Ice Cream Co., 238 N.C. 317, 77 S.E. 2d 910. Upon the authority of the case cited, the petition is

Dismissed.

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

Amazon Cotton Mills Co. v. Duplan Corp., 97 S.E.2d 449, 246 N.C. 88, 1957 N.C. LEXIS 365 (N.C. 1957).

97 S.E.2d 449 (Amazon Cotton Mills Co. v. Duplan Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tuwamo v. Tuwamo
790 S.E.2d 331 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2016)
Beam v. Almond
157 S.E.2d 215 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)
Skinner v. Empresa Transformadora De Productos Agropecuarios
113 S.E.2d 717 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)
State Ex Rel. East Lenoir Sanitary District v. City of Lenoir
105 S.E.2d 411 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1958)
Bailey v. McGill
100 S.E.2d 860 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)