Veasey v. King
This text of 92 S.E.2d 761 (Veasey v. King) 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
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
92 S.E.2d 761, 244 N.C. 216, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/veasey-v-king-nc-1956.