Rucker v. . Snider Brothers, Inc.

191 S.E. 6, 211 N.C. 566, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 151
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided April 28, 1937·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

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

Rucker v. . Snider Brothers, Inc., 191 S.E. 6, 211 N.C. 566, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 151 (N.C. 1937).

191 S.E. 6 (Rucker v. . Snider Brothers, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hill v. . Stansbury
20 S.E.2d 308 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)
Guthrie v. . Gocking
199 S.E. 707 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Cunningham Ex Rel. Cunningham v. Haynes
199 S.E. 627 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
In Re Disabarment of West
193 S.E. 134 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)