Hutchins v. . Mangum

153 S.E. 409, 198 N.C. 774, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 480

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: June 6, 1930
• Status: Published

Opinion

ClabksoN, J.

The only question of law involved: Is there a material issue of fact raised by the answer filed by the defendant, Julia A. Mangum ?

The action is to forfeit the alleged life estate of Julia A. Mangum for failure to pay taxes. C. S., 7982. We think the answer raises a ques: tion of fact.

C. S., 519, is as follows: “The answer of the defendant must contain: 1. A general or specific denial of each material allegation of the complaint controverted by the defendant, or of any knowledge or information thereof sufficient to form a belief. 2. A statement of any new matter constituting a defense or counterclaim, in ordinary and concise language, without repetition.”

Defendant contends that she has complied with the statute. “This defendant’s answer is in exact compliance with the second clause of the first paragraph of said section 519.”

The latter part of section 537 is as follows: “When the allegations of a pleading are so indefinite or uncertain that the precise nature of the charge or defense is not apparent, the court may require the pleading to be made definite and certain by amendment.”

The motion is addressed to the discretion of the court below. The court below has a right ex mero motu to direct that the pleading shall be more explicit. The motion in this Court made by defendant to amend the answer we do not pass on, but leave it to the discretion of the court below.

Affirmed.

BeogdeN, J., not sitting.