Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

244 N.C. 216

92 S.E.2d 761

Veasey v. King

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 23, 1956

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1956-05-23

Relies on Early v. Eley

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1956-05-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 1971

6 state decisions

20195619601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 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.

¶2 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

¶3 Affirmed.

/244/nc/216 · .json · Public domain