Rucker v. . Snider Brothers, Inc.
This text of 191 S.E. 6 (Rucker v. . Snider Brothers, Inc.) 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.
Opinion
This is the same case that was before us, on petition to remove, at the Fall Term, 1936, reported in 210 N. C., 778.
The ruling on the motion to strike will be upheld on authority of Pemberton v. Greensboro, 203 N. C., 514, 166 S. E., 396; S. c., 205 N. C., 599, 172 S. E., 196. Nothing was said in Poovey v. Hickory, 210 N. C., 630, 188 S. E., 78, or Jackson v. Bank, 203 N. C., 357, 166 S. E., 176, which conflicts with this view.
On the argument, appellant interposed a demurrer ore tenus to the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the Maner Motor Transit Company. When the cases were here on the former appeal, it was said: “It is obvious that plaintiff has here alleged a cause of action based upon the joint and concurring negligence of both resident and nonresident tort-feasors, at the same time and place, and that the complaint does not show a separable controversy.” Rucker v. Snider Bros, 210 N. C., 777. True, this was said on consideration of the motion to remove, but it would seem to be sufficient to dispose of the demurrer ore tenus.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
191 S.E. 6, 211 N.C. 566, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rucker-v-snider-brothers-inc-nc-1937.