Western Carolina Power Co. v. Klutz

145 S.E. 681, 196 N.C. 358, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 375
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided December 12, 1928·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

*359 Stacy, 0. J.

Even if it be conceded that the present proceeding cannot properly be consolidated for trial with the three other condemnation proceedings pending in the Superior Court of Catawba County as petitioner alleges — which question is not presented and therefore not decided — still the motion to remove, on the grounds stated, “for the convenience of witnesses and to promote the ends of justice,” 0. S., 470, rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and is not reviewable on appeal. Perry v. Perry, 172 N. C., 62, 89 S. E., 999; Byrd v. Spruce Co., 170 N. C., 429, 87 S. E., 241; Garrett v. Bear, 144 N. C., 23, 56 S. E., 479.

Affirmed.

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

Western Carolina Power Co. v. Klutz, 145 S.E. 681, 196 N.C. 358, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 375 (N.C. 1928).

145 S.E. 681 (Western Carolina Power Co. v. Klutz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nichols v. Goldston
58 S.E.2d 348 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Hood
34 S.E.2d 204 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1945)
Howard v. Queen City Coach Co.
193 S.E. 138 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Grimes v. . Fulton
147 S.E. 680 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1929)