Ledford v. Marion Transportation Co.
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Daniel v. Gardner (N.C. 1954)
- Hamilton v. Hamilton (N.C. 1955)
- Pinnix v. Toomey (N.C. 1955)
- Ammons v. Layton (N.C. 1955)
- Henry v. Home Finance Group, Inc. (N.C. 1955)
- Baker v. Fruehauf Trailer Co. (N.C. 1955)
- In re the Last Will & Testament of Wood (N.C. 1954)
- Purvis ex rel. Purvis v. Whitaker (N.C. 1953)
- Sowers v. Home-Made Chair Co. (N.C. 1953)
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
No useful purpose would be served by setting out in detail the specific allegations of the complaint challenged by the motion to strike. However, if it be conceded that the complaint is not as concise and devoid of repetition as it might be in stating the plaintiff’s cause of action, we can see nothing in it that will be harmful or prejudicial to defendant’s rights.
In Hinson v. Britt, 232 N.C. 379, 61 S.E. 2d 185, we said: “This Court does not correct errors of the Superior Court unless such errors preju-dicially affect the substantial rights of the party appealing. Hence, the denying or overruling of a motion to strike matter from a pleading under the provisions of G.S. 1-153 is not ground for reversal unless the record affirmatively reveals these two things : (1) That the matter is irrelevant or redundant; and (2) that its retention in the pleading will cause harm or injustice to the moving party,” citing Teasley v. Teasley, 205 N.C. 604, 172 S.E. 197. Neal v. Greyhound Corp., 235 N.C. 225, 69 S.E. 2d 319; Terry v. Coal Co., 231 N.C. 103, 55 S.E. 2d 926; Hawkins v. Moss, 222 N.C. 95, 21 S.E. 2d 873; Hill v. Stansbury, 221 N.C. 339, 20 S.E. 2d 308; McDonald v. Zimmerman, 206 N.C. 746, 175 S.E. 92.
The ruling of the court below is
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.