Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

254 N.C. 508

119 S.E.2d 192

Elliott v. Goss

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 19, 1961

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1961-04-19

Relies on Lamm v. Crumpler · Elliott v. Goss

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1961-04-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 2014

8 state decisions

40196119701980199020002010decided

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 Cueiam.

¶1 This case was here at a prior term. Elliott v. Goss, 250 N.C. 185, 108 S.E. 2d 475. The decision of this Court on the former appeal sustained a demurrer to the complaint but permitted plaintiffs to amend.

¶2 Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Defendants demurred on the ground that the amended complaint does not state a cause of action. The trial court overruled the demurrer. In this we find no error. The complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in ejectment and to quiet title. Furthermore, the argument of defendants in support of demurrer has no validity unless matters dehors the complaint are considered. In reality defendants convert their pleading into a speaking demurrer. In this aspect, the demurrer may not be sustained in any event — a speaking demurrer may not be considered. Lamm v. Crumpler, 240 N.C. 35, 43, 81 S.E. 2d 138.

¶3 After this case had been argued here, counsel mailed a copy of the instrument defendants desire the Court to consider. It is not a part of the record and this Court will not go outside the record. Even so, we find nothing therein which would, if considered, change the results.

¶4 Defendants assign as error the admission in evidence of certain testimony and a purported deed. The evidence adduced at the trial, other than that referred to in the assignment of error, and the charge of the court are not a part of the record. It is therefore impossible for this Court to determine whether or not the particular evidence excepted to was prejudicial to defendants. Considering it out of context, it appears to have been properly admitted. The assignment of error is not sustained.

¶5*510 The issues submitted to the jury are sufficient to determine the issues of fact raised by the pleadings.

¶6 The costs will be paid by defendants (other than R. S. Boger and wife).

¶7 In the trial of the case we find

¶8 No error.

/254/nc/508 · .json · Public domain