From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

BELL v. TEA CO

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Nov 1, 1931
160 S.E. 923 (N.C. 1931)

Opinion

(Filed 10 November, 1931.)

APPEAL by plaintiff from Warlick, J., at September Term, 1931, of DAVIDSON. Affirmed.

Walser Walser for appellant.

Raper Raper for appellee.


The plaintiff brought suit to recover damages for the wrongful death of his intestate Alonzo Bell. He moved for judgment by default and inquiry against the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company for want of an answer. This defendant resisted the plaintiff's motion and moved for an extension of time for filing the answer. The clerk denied the defendant's motion for want of power to extend the time, gave judgment by default and inquiry, and retained the case upon the docket of the Superior Court for the assessment of damages. The defendant excepted and appealed. Judge Warlick found certain facts and in the exercise of his discretion granted the defendant's motion for the extension of time at which to file its answer.

The judgment is affirmed upon the authority of McNair v. Yarboro, 186 N.C. 111, and Howard v. Hinson, 191 N.C. 366.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

BELL v. TEA CO

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Nov 1, 1931
160 S.E. 923 (N.C. 1931)
Case details for

BELL v. TEA CO

Case Details

Full title:CHARLIE BELL, ADMINISTRATOR OF ALONZO BELL, v. GREAT ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC…

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Nov 1, 1931

Citations

160 S.E. 923 (N.C. 1931)
160 S.E. 923

Citing Cases

Vann v. Coleman

We see no error in the judgment of the court below. We think the matter was in the sound discretion of the…