Harris Clay Co. v. Carolina China Clay Co.

170 S.E. 635, 205 N.C. 830, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 610
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Harris Clay Co. v. Carolina China Clay Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 203 N.C. 12
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided September 20, 1933·Published

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

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

170 S.E. 635 (Harris Clay Co. v. Carolina China Clay Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pemberton v. City of Greensboro
166 S.E. 396 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
Harris Clay Co. v. Carolina China Clay Co.
164 S.E. 341 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
Blackmore v. . Winders
56 S.E. 874 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1907)