Hope v. . Peterson
90 S.E. 257, 172 N.C. 869, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 434
Opinion
The defendant moves in this Court to dismiss the action because it is brought in the name of the father and not by the executor or administrator of the son, and the motion must be sustained.
The case of Killian v. R. R., 128 N. C., 261, decides the exact question in favor of the defendant.
Action dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hope v. . Peterson, 90 S.E. 257, 172 N.C. 869, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 434 (N.C. 1916).
90 S.E. 257 (Hope v. . Peterson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Gibson v. Campbell
222 S.E.2d 449 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1976)
White v. . Comrs. of Johnston
7 S.E.2d 825 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Brown v. Southern Railway Co.
162 S.E. 613 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
Hinnant v. Tidewater Power Co.
126 S.E. 307 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)