Coggins v. Elythe

114 N.C. 274
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 15, 1894
StatusPublished

This text of 114 N.C. 274 (Coggins v. Elythe) 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
Coggins v. Elythe, 114 N.C. 274 (N.C. 1894).

Opinion

MacRak, J.:

The action did not abate upon the death of the two plaintiffs, Thomas C. and Martha A. Harris. The [277]*277cause remained upon the docket and was proceeded with at the instance of the surviving plaintiffs, whose rights have now been determined. There being no personal representative of the deceased plaintiffs, no motion was made within a year after their death to continue the action as to them. It was within the power of the defendants at any time after their death to have applied to the Court to have the action abated as to them unless proper parties were brought in, but as this was not done it was entirely within the discretion of the presiding Judge to allow their representative to file a supplementary complaint and prosecute the action upon his motion to that effect, made before the final determination of the cause. The Code, §188; Baggarly v. Calvert, 70 N. C., 688; Moore v. Railroad, 74 N. C., 528. Affirmed.

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

Related

Moore v. North Carolina Railroad
74 N.C. 528 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1876)
Baggarly v. . Calvert
70 N.C. 688 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 N.C. 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coggins-v-elythe-nc-1894.