Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

260 N.C. 539

133 S.E.2d 150

Williams v. Denning

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 20, 1963

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1963-11-20

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 1984

8 state decisions

Relies on Linkous v. Millner · John Brownfield v. State of South Carolina · Osborne v. Town of Canton

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1963-11-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CüRIAm.

¶1 Plaintiff took eleven exceptions1 — ten to the order ¡sustaining defendants’ motion to strike, one to the refusal to allow its motion for judgment ¡by default.

¶2 The exceptions are no|t grouped 'in the record as required by Rule 19(3) of the Court (254 N.C. 797). An order striking allegations contained in ¡a pleading is not appealable. The remedy, if tire order is deemed erroneous, isiby certiorari. Rule 4(a) (2) (254 N.C. 785).

¶3 Plaintiff’s pleadings are a complaint, G.S. 1-121, and a reply, G.S. 1-140. Defendants pleadings ¡are m answer and a demurrer, G.S. 1-124. A motion, is >an application for 'an order, G.S. 1-578. It is not a pleading within the meaning of G.S. 1-144. Brownfield v. South Carolina, 189 U.S. 426, 47 L. ed. 882.

¶4 The order allowing plaintiff to file an amended complaint and defendant .time thereafter to answer was made in the court’s discretion and as such is not reviewabie in the absence of manifest abuse, which is not here suggested. Osborne v. Canton, 219 N.C. 139, 13 S.E. 2d 265.

¶5 Appeal dismissed.

/260/nc/539 · .json · Public domain