Levy v. Meir

103 S.E.2d 288, 248 N.C. 328, 1958 N.C. LEXIS 375
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided April 30, 1958·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A pleading must be subscribed by a party or his attorney. The complaint filed in this case meets this statutory requirement. Whether plaintiff verifies his complaint is optional with him unless some statute requires verification as a condition to the maintenance of the action. G.S. 1-144. No statute requires verification to maintain an action on a promissory note. Since plaintiff can maintain his action without verifying the complaint, an attempted verification, which is a nullity, cannot defeat that right. Reynolds v. Smathers, 87 N.C. 24; McNair v. Yarboro, 186 N.C. 111. As the verification does not meet the requirement of the statute, G.S. 1-146, defendant is not required to verify his answer.

Reversed.

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

Levy v. Meir, 103 S.E.2d 288, 248 N.C. 328, 1958 N.C. LEXIS 375 (N.C. 1958).

103 S.E.2d 288 (Levy v. Meir) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pitt County v. Deja Vue, Inc.
650 S.E.2d 12 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2007)
JWA v. State of Ga.
210 S.E.2d 24 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)
Ivey v. North Carolina Prison Department
114 S.E.2d 812 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)