Veasey v. King

92 S.E.2d 761, 244 N.C. 216, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 666
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided May 23, 1956·No. 674·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The additional plaintiffs, Charles E. Hartman and wife, Gertrude Joyce Hartman, having purchased the locus in quo subsequent to the institution of the suit for permanent damages are entitled, if they can, to repel the assault on their title made by the defendant’s claim of ownership and right to possession in himself. They are, therefore, at least proper parties to the action. It is true the right to recover permanent damages does not pass upon sale of the damaged property. Although the additional parties cannot participate in any award of permanent damages, yet they are entitled to participate in the defense of the title and right to possession of the property which they have purchased.

The judge, in his discretion, is authorized to enlarge the time for filing complaint and the exercise of his discretion is not subject to review. Early v. Eley, 243 N.C. 695, 91 S.E. 2d 919. The judgment of the Superior Court overruling the demurrer is

Affirmed.

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

Veasey v. King, 92 S.E.2d 761, 244 N.C. 216, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 666 (N.C. 1956).

92 S.E.2d 761 (Veasey v. King) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hendrix v. Alsop
180 S.E.2d 802 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1971)
Deanes v. Clark
135 S.E.2d 6 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)
Etheridge v. Wescott
94 S.E.2d 846 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)