Merritt v. . Dick

85 S.E. 2, 169 N.C. 244, 1915 N.C. LEXIS 189
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedApril 22, 1915
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 85 S.E. 2 (Merritt v. . Dick) 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
Merritt v. . Dick, 85 S.E. 2, 169 N.C. 244, 1915 N.C. LEXIS 189 (N.C. 1915).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendants move to dismiss this action under Rule 19, subsection 2, for a failure to properly assign error. The plaintiff *245 assigned a number of additional assignments of error wben the case was called for argument, and asked the court to consider them, which motion was taken under advisement.

In the record proper the original assignments of error are as follows: Group 1 includes the first assignment; Group 2 includes 3, 4, 5, 8, 10; 11, and 15; Group 3 includes 12, 13, and 14; Group 4 includes No. 16; Group 5, No. 17; Group 6, Nos. 22 to 40, inclusive.

It is manifest that these assignments are far from being a compliance with the rule. They give no indication whatever of the errors complained of, and would require an almost microscopical examination of the record to locate them.

We feel constrained to deny the motion, as it would require the filing of an entire new brief upon the part of the defendant. Nevertheless, we have looked informally into the additional assignments of error, filed at the time of the argument, and we think that they are without merit.

A controversy in respect to the location of the grant seems to be one almost exclusively of fact, and seems to have been properly submitted to the jury. The only error properly assigned in the original record is to the action of his Honor in permitting the defendant to file an amended answer. This was purely discretionary upon the part of the judge, and there is nothing in the record indicating that such discretion was abused.

No error.

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

Related

Naseef v. Cord, Inc.
216 A.2d 413 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1966)
Crossfield v. Phoenix Ins. Co.
187 A.2d 20 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1962)
LeFelt v. Nasarow
177 A.2d 315 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1962)
Hannigan v. Goldfarb
147 A.2d 56 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1958)
State v. White
142 A.2d 65 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1958)
Farber v. Margolin
135 A.2d 239 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1957)
State v. Quatro
129 A.2d 741 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1957)
Tillis v. Calvine Cotton Mills, Inc.
94 S.E.2d 600 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
State v. . Bittings
175 S.E. 299 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Baker v. . Clayton
164 S.E. 233 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
In Re Will of Beard
163 S.E. 748 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
Waddell v. Cary
152 S.E. 179 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 S.E. 2, 169 N.C. 244, 1915 N.C. LEXIS 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merritt-v-dick-nc-1915.