Phipps v. . Wilson

34 S.E. 227, 125 N.C. 106, 1899 N.C. LEXIS 176
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided October 31, 1899·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

*107 Clase, J.

Tbe plaintiff sued out claim and delivery, tbe defendant set up as counterclaim damages accruing from such seizure, wbicb be alleges was wrongful. There being no reply filed, bis Honor gave judgment by default and inquiry in favor of defendant upon tbe counterclaim. Tbis was error while the issue raised by complaint and answer as to lawfulness of tbe seizure was undetermined.

Besides such counterclaim could not be set up in tbis action, for it did not arise out of tbe same cause of action, nor did not exist at tbe commencement of tbe action. Kramer v. Light Co., 95 N. C., 277; Puffer v. Lucas, 112 N. C., 377.

Error.

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

Phipps v. . Wilson, 34 S.E. 227, 125 N.C. 106, 1899 N.C. LEXIS 176 (N.C. 1899).

34 S.E. 227 (Phipps v. . Wilson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Finance Corp. v. . Lane
19 S.E.2d 849 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)
Manufacturers & Jobbers Finance Corp. v. Lane
19 S.E.2d 849 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)
Godwin v. . Kennedy
145 S.E. 229 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1928)
White Blakeslee Manufacturing Co. v. Rhodes
68 S.E. 141 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1910)
Tillinghast v. Cotton Mills.
55 S.E. 621 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1906)
Smith v. French.
53 S.E. 435 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1906)
Satterthwaite v. Ellis.
39 S.E. 726 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1901)
Griffin v. Thomas.
38 S.E. 903 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1901)