Gammon v. Clark

214 S.E.2d 250, 25 N.C. App. 670, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2364
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedMay 7, 1975
Docket7517SC123
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 214 S.E.2d 250 (Gammon v. Clark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gammon v. Clark, 214 S.E.2d 250, 25 N.C. App. 670, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2364 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

*671 ARNOLD, Judge.

The sole question for decision is whether the complaint sets forth matters sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Judgment on the pleadings is proper only when the. pleadings fail to to present any issue of fact for the jury. Jones v. Warren, 274 N.C. 166, 161 S.E. 2d 467 (1968). See also Ragsdale v. Kennedy, 286 N.C. 130, 209 S.E. 2d 494 (1974) ; 6 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Pleadings § 38, pp. 376-77.

The rule, as stated by Ervin, J., is as follows:

“When a party moves for judgment on the pleadings, he admits these two things for the purpose of his motion, namely: (1) The truth of all well-pleaded facts in the pleading of his adversary, together with all fair inferences to be drawn from such facts; and (2) the untruth of his own allegations in so far as they are controverted by the pleading of his adversary. [Citations omitted.]” Erickson v. Starling, 235 N.C. 643, 656, 71 S.E. 2d 384, 393 (1952).

In the case at bar, plaintiff has alleged and defendant has admitted facts from which a jury could infer that defendant was negligent. Defendant’s allegation of plaintiff’s negligence is controverted by plaintiff’s reply and for the purpose of his motion is deemed untrue. The factual allegation of defendant’s negligence, however, remains in issue. Since judgment on the pleadings was improper, the order of the trial court is

Reversed.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Parker concur.

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

Related

Shareff v. Lakebound Fixed Return Fund, LLC
2013 NCBC 16 (North Carolina Business Court, 2013)
Garrett v. Winfree
463 S.E.2d 411 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1995)
Thompson v. Town of Warsaw
462 S.E.2d 691 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1995)
Pipkin v. Lassiter
245 S.E.2d 105 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
214 S.E.2d 250, 25 N.C. App. 670, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gammon-v-clark-ncctapp-1975.