Bechtel v. . Weaver

164 S.E. 338, 202 N.C. 856, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 286
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided June 15, 1932·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

If it be conceded that the defendants’ plea in abatement should have been sustained (Brown v. Polk, 201 N. C., 375, 160 S. E., 357), still the correct result has been reached in another way, and the judgment will not be disturbed. Bank v. McCullers, 201 N. C., 440; Rankin v. Oates, 183 N. C., 517, 112 S. E., 32. “A new trial will not he granted when the action of the trial judge, even if erroneous, could by no possibility injure the appellant.” Butts v. Screws, 95 N. C., 215.

This disposition of the matter renders it unnecessary to consider defendants’ appeal.

Affirmed.

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

Bechtel v. . Weaver, 164 S.E. 338, 202 N.C. 856, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 286 (N.C. 1932).

164 S.E. 338 (Bechtel v. . Weaver) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hindman v. Appalachian State University
723 S.E.2d 579 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2012)
Goad v. Chase Home Finance, LLC
704 S.E.2d 1 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2010)
Munday v. Bank of Franklin
189 S.E. 779 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
McPherson v. . Williams
170 S.E. 662 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)