Harris Clay Co. v. Carolina China Clay Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Harris Clay Co. v. Carolina China Clay Co.

170 S.E. 635, 205 N.C. 830, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 610

DecidedSeptember 20, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 170 S.E. 635 (Harris Clay Co. v. Carolina China Clay Co.) 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

Harris Clay Co. v. Carolina China Clay Co., 170 S.E. 635, 205 N.C. 830, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 610 (N.C. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Tbis is the same ease that was here at the Spring Term, 1932, on a question of venue, reported in 203 N. C., 12.

The second ground of the demurrer seems to have been abandoned, and it was properly overruled on the first. The complaint contains allegations of damages arising ex delicto, which may have been overlooked, as they are not debated on brief; and a demurrer will be overruled unless the complaint is wholly insufficient. Blackmore v. Winders, 144 N. C., 212, 56 S. E., 874.

The question of the measure of plaintiff’s allowable recovery is not presently presented. Pemberton v. Greensboro, 203 N. C., 514, 166 S. E., 396.

Affirmed.

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