Lockhart v. . Lockhart

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Lockhart v. . Lockhart

25 S.E.2d 465, 223 N.C. 123, 1943 N.C. LEXIS 217

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 28, 1943

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 25 S.E.2d 465 (Lockhart v. . Lockhart) 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

Lockhart v. . Lockhart, 25 S.E.2d 465, 223 N.C. 123, 1943 N.C. LEXIS 217 (N.C. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Devin, J.

The case comes to us upon appeal from a judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendant. The ruling of the court below was bottomed upon the view that as a matter of law plaintiff could not maintain his action, and that there was no issuable fact to be tried by a jury. C. S., 556.

A judgment on the pleadings, in favor of the defendant on an affirmative defense, can be approved only when the allegations of facts contained *124 in the plaintiff’s pleadings and relevant inferences of fact deducible therefrom, construed liberally in his favor, fail in all material respects to make ont a case. Adams v. Cleve, 218 N. C., 302, 10 S. E. (2d), 911; Pridgen v. Pridgen, 190 N. C., 102, 129 S. E., 419.

An examination of the plaintiff’s complaint and reply in this case leads us to the conclusion that defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was improvidently allowed. While the defendant sets up in her answer a plea which, if established, would constitute a bar to the plaintiff’s action, the only admission by the plaintiff in his reply is that the previous judgment of divorce a mensa was by consent, and that his present action is based upon a separation which began subsequent thereto, and which has continued for two years next preceding the institution of this action, in January, 1943. There is no admission that his cause of action is based upon his own wrongful and unlawful conduct. Brown v. Brown, 213 N. C., 347, 196 S. E., 333, and Byers v. Byers, ante, 85. The pleadings raise issues of fact to be tried by jury.

The judgment rendered on the pleadings must be

Reversed.

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

Devin, J.

The case comes to us upon appeal from a judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendant. The ruling of the court below was bottomed upon the view that as a matter of law plaintiff could not maintain his action, and that there was no issuable fact to be tried by a jury. C. S., 556.

A judgment on the pleadings, in favor of the defendant on an affirmative defense, can be approved only when the allegations of facts contained *124 in the plaintiff’s pleadings and relevant inferences of fact deducible therefrom, construed liberally in his favor, fail in all material respects to make ont a case. Adams v. Cleve, 218 N. C., 302, 10 S. E. (2d), 911; Pridgen v. Pridgen, 190 N. C., 102, 129 S. E., 419.

An examination of the plaintiff’s complaint and reply in this case leads us to the conclusion that defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was improvidently allowed. While the defendant sets up in her answer a plea which, if established, would constitute a bar to the plaintiff’s action, the only admission by the plaintiff in his reply is that the previous judgment of divorce a mensa was by consent, and that his present action is based upon a separation which began subsequent thereto, and which has continued for two years next preceding the institution of this action, in January, 1943. There is no admission that his cause of action is based upon his own wrongful and unlawful conduct. Brown v. Brown, 213 N. C., 347, 196 S. E., 333, and Byers v. Byers, ante, 85. The pleadings raise issues of fact to be tried by jury.

The judgment rendered on the pleadings must be

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 S.E.2d 465, 223 N.C. 123, 1943 N.C. LEXIS 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lockhart-v-lockhart-nc-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack