Home/Supreme Court of North Carolina/Smith ex rel. Smith v. Price

Smith ex rel. Smith v. Price

116 S.E.2d 733, 253 N.C. 285, 1960 N.C. LEXIS 498
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedNovember 2, 1960
StatusPublished

This text of 116 S.E.2d 733 (Smith ex rel. Smith v. Price) 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
Smith ex rel. Smith v. Price, 116 S.E.2d 733, 253 N.C. 285, 1960 N.C. LEXIS 498 (N.C. 1960).

Opinion

Pee Cukiam.

The only question for determination is the method which the infant must use to obtain the desired relief. May he proceed by motion in the cause, or must he proceed by independent action?

Price’s injuries were unknown to the court, and for that reason were not considered by it. It appears of record that notwithstanding the conflict of interest among the defendants, all were represented by the same attorney. The judgment was irregular. A motion in the cause was proper. Menzel v. Menzel, 250 N.C. 649, 110 S.E. 2d 333; Hall v. Shippers Express, 234 N.C. 38, 65 S.E. 2d 333.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Hall v. Shippers Express, Inc.
65 S.E.2d 333 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1951)
Menzel v. Menzel
110 S.E.2d 333 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 S.E.2d 733, 253 N.C. 285, 1960 N.C. LEXIS 498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-ex-rel-smith-v-price-nc-1960.