Oliver v. . Hood, Comr. of Banks

183 S.E. 657, 209 N.C. 291, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 459
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 22, 1936
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 183 S.E. 657 (Oliver v. . Hood, Comr. of Banks) 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
Oliver v. . Hood, Comr. of Banks, 183 S.E. 657, 209 N.C. 291, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 459 (N.C. 1936).

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The ruling on the motion to dismiss is not appealable. Plemmons v. Imp. Co., 108 N. C., 614, 13 S. E., 188. The ruling on the demurrer is. Griffin v. Bank, 205 N. C., 253, 171 S. E., 71.

The appeal of the plaintiff from the levy of assessment was before us at the Spring Term, 1935, on a procedural question. In re Bank, 208 N. C., 65, 179 S. E., 24.

The present proceeding is a direct attack upon the summary judgment of assessment. Craddock v. Brinkley, 177 N. C., 125, 98 S. E., 280; Note, Ann. Cas., 1914 B, 82; 15 R. C. L., 839.

The demurrer admits facts properly pleaded, but not inferences or conclusions of law. Distributing Corp. v. Maxwell, Comr., ante, 47; Phifer v. Berry, 202 N. C., 388, 163 S. E., 119.

It is not alleged in the complaint that plaintiff was not a stockholder in the Citizens Bank of Mount Olive at the time of its closing, and, for this reason, not liable to assessment. He has carefully avoided making such allegation, it seems. The only ground upon which he seeks to avoid the judgment of assessment is that there was no' certificate of stock standing in his name upon the books of the bank at the time of the assessment. Non constat that he may not have been an equitable owner of stock. C. S., 219 (a); Corp. Com. v. McLean, 202 N. C., 77, 161 S. E., 854; Darden v. Coward, 197 N. C., 35, 147 S. E., 671; Corp. Com. v. Murphey, 197 N. C., 42, 147 S. E., 667. The complaint is bad as against a demurrer.

*293 It is still open to the plaintiff, however, to ask to be allowed to amend his complaint, if so advised. C. S., 515; Morris v. Cleve, 197 N. C., 253, 148 S. E., 253; McKeel v. Latham, 202 N. C., 318, 162 S. E., 747; S. c., 203 N. C., 246, 165 S. E., 694.

Eeversed.

Devin, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this ease.

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

Related

Johnstone v. Sanborn
358 P.2d 399 (Montana Supreme Court, 1960)
Casey v. . Barker
14 S.E.2d 429 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1941)
Scott v. . Harrison
7 S.E.2d 547 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Cameron v. . McDonald
6 S.E.2d 497 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Downing v. . White
188 S.E. 815 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
Barbee v. Board of Commissioners
188 S.E. 314 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
Abernethy v. . Burns
188 S.E. 97 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
Federal Land Bank of Columbia v. Robertson
187 S.E. 575 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
Citizens Bank of Marshall v. Gahagan
187 S.E. 580 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
183 S.E. 657, 209 N.C. 291, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oliver-v-hood-comr-of-banks-nc-1936.