Pender v. . Mallett
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Tillis v. Calvine Cotton Mills, Inc. (N.C. 1953)
- Chambers v. . R. R. (N.C. 1916)
- Chambers v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. (N.C. 1916)
- Douglas v. . Buchanan (N.C. 1937)
- Bohannon v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. (N.C. 1936)
- Mountain Park Institute, Inc. v. Lovill (N.C. 1930)
- Monroe v. . Holder (N.C. 1921)
- Ward v. . Martin (N.C. 1918)
- Shelby v. . R. R. (N.C. 1908)
- Shelby v. Charlotte Electric Railway, Light & Power Co. (N.C. 1908)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The Court overruled the demurrer, gave the defendant time till the 20th May, to file answer, and ordered that defendants appear before the Clerk to be examined under oath concerning the matters set out in the pleadings, Code, Section 580 et seq. The defendant excepted to the order and the judgment, but the Court being of opinion that an appeal did not lie, noted the *164 exception and directed the Clerk not now to send up a transcript. The defendants thereupon applied, after notice to the plaintiff, to this Court for a certiorari. It is true that an appeal from the order of examination is premature and will not lie. Vann v. Lawrence, 111 N. C., 32; Holt v. Warehouse Co., 116 N. C., 480. But an appeal lies from the judgment overruling a demurrer. Commissioners v. Magnin, 78 N. C., 181; Ramsay v. Railroad, 91 N. C., 418, and they are decisive of this application. The hearing here was complicated with other matters which have no bearing upon the sole question before us, which is as to the defendant’s right to appeal at this stage of the case. The certiorari will issue, but it will not suspend the order of examination of defendants.
Motion allowed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.