Theiling v. . Wilson
This text of 167 S.E. 32 (Theiling v. . Wilson) 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
No cause of action is stated against the board of commissioners of Mecklenburg County. The plaintiff simply alleges that his employer is indebted to him and that the board of county commissioners is indebted to his employer. The demurrer was properly sustained. Aman v. Walker, 165 N. C., 224, 81 S. E., 162.
But for a different reason, the appeal must be dismissed. Plaintiff has failed to file printed or mimeographed copies of brief as required by Rule 27. To dispense with the rule in this case would require its abrogation. Pr uit v. Wood, 199 N. C., 788, 156 S. E., 126; Byrd v. Southerland, 186 N. C., 384, 119 S. E., 2.
Appeal dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
167 S.E. 32, 203 N.C. 809, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/theiling-v-wilson-nc-1933.