Pender v. . Mallett

30 S.E. 324, 122 N.C. 163, 1898 N.C. LEXIS 216
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMay 2, 1898
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 30 S.E. 324 (Pender v. . Mallett) 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
Pender v. . Mallett, 30 S.E. 324, 122 N.C. 163, 1898 N.C. LEXIS 216 (N.C. 1898).

Opinion

Clark, J.:

The Court overruled the demurrer, gave the defendant time till the 20th May, to file answer, and ordered that defendants appear before the Clerk to be examined under oath concerning the matters set out in the pleadings, Code, Section 580 et seq. The defendant excepted to the order and the judgment, but the Court being of opinion that an appeal did not lie, noted the *164 exception and directed the Clerk not now to send up a transcript. The defendants thereupon applied, after notice to the plaintiff, to this Court for a certiorari. It is true that an appeal from the order of examination is premature and will not lie. Vann v. Lawrence, 111 N. C., 32; Holt v. Warehouse Co., 116 N. C., 480. But an appeal lies from the judgment overruling a demurrer. Commissioners v. Magnin, 78 N. C., 181; Ramsay v. Railroad, 91 N. C., 418, and they are decisive of this application. The hearing here was complicated with other matters which have no bearing upon the sole question before us, which is as to the defendant’s right to appeal at this stage of the case. The certiorari will issue, but it will not suspend the order of examination of defendants.

Motion allowed.

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

Related

Allred v. Graves
134 S.E.2d 186 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)
Tillis v. Calvine Cotton Mills, Inc.
76 S.E.2d 376 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
Douglas v. . Buchanan
191 S.E. 736 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Bohannon v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.
188 S.E. 390 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
Mountain Park Institute, Inc. v. Lovill
153 S.E. 114 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)
Monroe v. . Holder
108 S.E. 359 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1921)
Ward v. . Martin
95 S.E. 621 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1918)
Chambers v. . R. R.
90 S.E. 590 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1916)
Chambers v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.
172 N.C. 555 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1916)
Shelby v. Charlotte Electric Railway, Light & Power Co.
147 N.C. 537 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1908)
Shelby v. . R. R.
61 S.E. 377 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1908)
Pender v. . Mallett
31 S.E. 351 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 S.E. 324, 122 N.C. 163, 1898 N.C. LEXIS 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pender-v-mallett-nc-1898.