Swink v. . Horn

40 S.E.2d 352, 226 N.C. 718, 1946 N.C. LEXIS 324
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Swink v. . Horn. Read the opinion of the Court — 226 N.C. 713
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided November 20, 1946·Published

Opinion

Devin, J.

The defendant in the above entitled cause moves in this Court that plaintiff’s action be dismissed as having abated by reason of the death, pending the appeal, of the plaintiff’s mother whose critical illness was alleged to have rendered it necessary for plaintiff to obtain possession of the apartment now occupied by the defendant, under Federal Rent Control Regulations. It was contended that plaintiff’s cause of action has become moot and is no longer supported by existing facts.

*719 Undoubtedly, where, pending an appeal, the subject of the action has been destroyed or has ceased to exist, or been settled between the parties, or tbe right of action does not survive the death of the plaintiff, or the action or thing sought to be enjoined has happened or been completed, or because of devolution of title plaintiff’s interest has determined, a motion in this Court to dismiss the action as having abated ordinarily would be entertained. Cochran v. Rowe, 225 N. C., 645, 36 S. E. (2d), 75; Efird v. Commissioners, 217 N. C., 691, 9 S. E. (2d), 466; Rousseau v. Bullis, 201 N. C., 12, 158 S. E., 553; Rasberry v. Hicks, 199 N. C., 702, 155 S. E., 616; Glenn v. Culbreth, 197 N. C., 675, 150 S. E., 332; Kilpatrick v. Harvey, 170 N. C., 668, 86 S. E., 596; Reid v. R. R., 162 N. C., 355, 78 S. E., 306; Wikel v. Commissioners, 120 N. C., 451, 27 S. E., 117; S. v. R. R., 74 N. C., 287; Kidd v. Morrison, 62 N. C., 31; McIntosh, 775. But here the ground on which defendant’s motion is based is in substance that evidence material to the issue tried below is no longer available to the plaintiff. This applies not to the subject of the action but to an element of proof. It is merely incidental to the relief sought. Plaintiff’s cause of action has not been destroyed. The evidence referred to was used by the plaintiff in the trial below to overcome the artificial strength temporarily given the defendant’s defense by the rent regulations under the Emergency Price Control Act. The plaintiff’s right to repossess her property upon the expiration of the defendant’s lease, after due notice to vacate, under the law in this State, may not be deemed to have ceased to exist, or to afford the defendant ground for the reversal of the result in plaintiff’s favor in the trial in the Superior Court by the dismissal of the action by this Court.

Motion denied.

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

Swink v. . Horn, 40 S.E.2d 352, 226 N.C. 718, 1946 N.C. LEXIS 324 (N.C. 1946).

40 S.E.2d 352 (Swink v. . Horn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Reid v. Norfolk Southern Railroad
78 S.E. 306 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1913)
Kilpatrick v. . Harvey
86 S.E. 596 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1915)
State v. . R. R.
74 N.C. 287 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1876)
Wikel v. Board of Commissioners
27 S.E. 117 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
Glenn v. . Culbreth
150 S.E. 332 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1929)
Efird v. Board of Commissioners
9 S.E.2d 466 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Kidd v. . Morrison
62 N.C. 31 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1866)
Rousseau v. . Bullis
158 S.E. 553 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)
Cochran v. . Rowe
36 S.E.2d 75 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1945)
Rasberry v. Hicks
155 S.E. 616 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)