Brown v. . Polk
This text of 160 S.E. 357 (Brown v. . Polk) 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.
Opinion
after stating the case: The plea in abatement was properly overruled. Hawkins v. Hughes, 87 N. C., 115. The causes of action are different in the two suits. A final judgment in the action brought in Yanee County would not support a plea of res judicata in the subsequent proceeding instituted in "Warren County. This is one of the tests of identity. Bank v. Broadhurst, 197 N. C., 365, 148 S. E., 452. In short, the two suits are unlike: the causes of action are not the same; and the results sought are dissimilar. 1 C. J., 56. This renders the plea in abatement bad.
Nothing was said in Construction Co. v. Ice Co., 190 N. C., 580, 130 S. E., 165, or Allen v. Salley, 179 N. C., 147, 101 S. E., 545, which militates against our present position.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
160 S.E. 357, 201 N.C. 375, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-polk-nc-1931.