Warren v. Ward

209 N.C. 835
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided January 22, 1936·Published

Opinion

Pee Oueiam.

We see no error in the judgment of the court below. The allegations of plaintiff’s complaint and his prayer for relief we think are so general and indefinite that under our most liberal practice plaintiff is not entitled to an issue as to the question of valuable improve- • ments. The principle invoked by plaintiff is well settled in Pass v. Brooks, 125 N. C., 129; S. c., 127 N. C., 119, and the more recent case of Insurance Co. v. Cordon, 208 N. C., 723. The pleadings of plaintiff and the theory upon which the case was heard in the court below does not now permit plaintiff to invoke the well settled principle in the above cited cases.

The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.

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

Warren v. Ward, 209 N.C. 835 (N.C. 1936).

209 N.C. 835 (Warren v. Ward) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pass v. . Brooks
34 S.E. 228 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1899)
Pass v. Brooks.
37 S.E. 151 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1900)
Union Central Life Insurance v. Cordon
182 S.E. 496 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)