Williams v. . Mfg. Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Williams v. . Mfg. Co.

164 S.E. 926, 202 N.C. 859, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 289

DecidedJune 15, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 164 S.E. 926 (Williams v. . Mfg. Co.) 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.

Bluebook

Williams v. . Mfg. Co., 164 S.E. 926, 202 N.C. 859, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 289 (N.C. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff alleged that the defendant is a corporation operating a large industrial plant in Gaston County and owns certain tenement houses constructed for the use of its employees. It was further alleged that after dark on 5 January, 1931, the plaintiff visited the home of one Brown, who occupied one of the houses so owned and maintained by the defendant, and that as she attempted to enter the house the steps thereto "gave way, violently precipitating this plaintiff to the ground, inflicting injury as hereinafter alleged." It was further alleged that "the defendant licensed this plaintiff and the general public to use on or about 5 January, 1931, said steps," etc.

The defendant demurred ore tenus upon the ground that the complaint stated no cause of action. The demurrer was sustained and the plaintiff excepted and appealed. The demurrer was properly sustained upon authority of Money v. HotelCo., 174 N.C. 508, 93 S.E. 964, and Tucker v. Yarn Mill Co., 194 N.C. 756,140 S.E. 744.

Affirmed.

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

Plaintiff alleged that the defendant is a corporation operating a large industrial plant in Gaston County and owns certain tenement houses constructed for the use of its employees. It was further alleged that after dark on 5 January, 1931, the plaintiff visited the home of one Brown, who occupied one of the houses so owned and maintained by the defendant, and that as she attempted to enter the house the steps thereto "gave way, violently precipitating this plaintiff to the ground, inflicting injury as hereinafter alleged." It was further alleged that "the defendant licensed this plaintiff and the general public to use on or about 5 January, 1931, said steps," etc.

The defendant demurred ore tenus upon the ground that the complaint stated no cause of action. The demurrer was sustained and the plaintiff excepted and appealed. The demurrer was properly sustained upon authority of Money v. HotelCo., 174 N.C. 508, 93 S.E. 964, and Tucker v. Yarn Mill Co., 194 N.C. 756,140 S.E. 744.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 S.E. 926, 202 N.C. 859, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-mfg-co-nc-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack