Mitchem v. . Pasour

92 S.E. 322, 173 N.C. 487, 1917 N.C. LEXIS 329
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMay 9, 1917
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 92 S.E. 322 (Mitchem v. . Pasour) 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
Mitchem v. . Pasour, 92 S.E. 322, 173 N.C. 487, 1917 N.C. LEXIS 329 (N.C. 1917).

Opinion

Allek, J.

The uniform rule under our system of pleading is to construe the allegations liberally in favor of the pleader, with a view to substantial justice between the parties (Brewer v. Wynne, 154 N. C., 471), and “when the action can be fairly treated as based either in contract or in tort, the courts, in favor of jurisdiction, will sustain the election made by the plaintiff” (Schulhofer v. R. R., 118 N. C., 1096, approved in White v. Ely, 145 N. C., 36) ; and further: “If the complaint is so worded that under the liberal procedure of The Code it could have been construed to be either an action on an express or implied contract (Stokes v. Taylor, 104 N. C., 394; Fulps v. Mock, 108 N. C., 601; Holden v. Warren, 118 N. C., 326) or either in tort or contract (Brittain v. Payne, 118 N. C., 989, Schulhofer v. R. R., 118 N. C., 1096; Timber Co. v. Brooks, 109 N. C., 698; Bowers v. R. R., 107 N. C., 721, or as a common-law action or one under the statute (Roberson v. Morgan, 118 N. C., 991), the Court will sustain the juris"diction.” Sa ms v. Price, 119 N. C., 573.

In Bowers v. R. R., 107 N. C., 727, these principles were applied and the jurisdiction of the Superior Court sustained to recover less than $200 upon a complaint which alleged a contract as the foundation of the action, and the negligent failure to perform the contract, and applying them to the allegations of the complaint in the present action it is clear that an action in tort,' which is within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court, is alleged, as the complaint alleges a tenancy, the nonpayment of rent, and a conversion of the crops raised on the lands rented. The judgment dismissing the action must be- set aside.

Reversed.

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

Related

Coble v. Reap
152 S.E.2d 219 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)
Andrews v. National Oil Co.
168 S.E. 228 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
Jenkins v. . Wood
160 S.E. 488 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)
Roebuck v. . Short
144 S.E. 515 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1928)
Higgs-Taft Furniture Co. v. Clark
131 S.E. 731 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 S.E. 322, 173 N.C. 487, 1917 N.C. LEXIS 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchem-v-pasour-nc-1917.