Cuthbertson v. Burton

111 S.E.2d 604, 251 N.C. 457, 1959 N.C. LEXIS 597
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided December 16, 1959·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

RodmaN, J.

Judge Sharp correctly refused to allow the motion of -additional defendant. The amended answer asserts an affirmative defense -requiring proof. Burton has not by demurrer challenged the -asserted defense andi thereby admitted the facts alleged. The amended answer merely -plead-s the -asserted release and not the order or judgment -pursuant to which the release was executed. Judge Hu-skins both authorized and directed -payment of $1,800 land acceptance -of a release. The scope and -effect of Judge Huskins’ -order can only be -determined' when that is properly before us.

Judge Sharp was without authority to review -and v-acate orders or judgments, not merely interlocutory, entered in the cause 'by another judge of -the Superior Court. Topping v. Board of Education, 249 N. C. 291, 106 S.E. 2d 502; Neighbors v. Neighbors, 236 N.C. 531, 73 S.E. 2d 153; Davis v. Land Bank, 217 N.C. 145, 7 S.E. 2d 373. The court properly refused to -allow the motion of additional defendant.

Affirmed.

HiggiNS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Cuthbertson v. Burton, 111 S.E.2d 604, 251 N.C. 457, 1959 N.C. LEXIS 597 (N.C. 1959).

111 S.E.2d 604 (Cuthbertson v. Burton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Greene v. Charlotte Chemical Laboratories, Inc.
120 S.E.2d 82 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1961)