Bank v. . Moseley

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Bank v. . Moseley

162 S.E. 924, 202 N.C. 836, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 259

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided March 9, 1932·Published

Opinion

Civil action (1) to recover on two promissory notes, and (2) to set aside a deed alleged to have been executed by the defendants in fraud of the plaintiff's rights.

Demurrer interposed on the ground of misjoinder of parties and causes. Overruled; exception; appeal. *Page 837 Affirmed on authority of Carswell v. Talley, 192 N.C. 37,135 S.E. 181, Robinson v. Williams, 189 N.C. 256, 126 S.E. 621,Chemical Co. v. Floyd, 158 N.C. 455, 74 S.E. 465, LeDuc v. Brandt,110 N.C. 289, 14 S.E. 778.

Affirmed.

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

Civil action (1) to recover on two promissory notes, and (2) to set aside a deed alleged to have been executed by the defendants in fraud of the plaintiff's rights.

Demurrer interposed on the ground of misjoinder of parties and causes. Overruled; exception; appeal. *Page 837 Affirmed on authority of Carswell v. Talley, 192 N.C. 37,135 S.E. 181, Robinson v. Williams, 189 N.C. 256, 126 S.E. 621,Chemical Co. v. Floyd, 158 N.C. 455, 74 S.E. 465, LeDuc v. Brandt,110 N.C. 289, 14 S.E. 778.

Affirmed.

Bank v. . Moseley, 162 S.E. 924, 202 N.C. 836, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 259 (N.C. 1932).

Pincite

162 S.E. 924 (Bank v. . Moseley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related