Williams v. Hutton

8 Citing cases

  1. Board of Drainage Com'rs of Pender County Drainage Dist. No. 4 v. Lafayette Southside Bank of St. Louis

    27 F.2d 286 (4th Cir. 1928)   Cited 18 times

    "In regard to the persons in whose favor or against whom the doctrine of res judicata is applicable it is well settled that a judgment or decree is binding upon all parties to the proceeding in which it was rendered and their privies, and on the other hand it is equally well settled that with certain exceptions hereinafter noted, strangers to a judgment or decree are not bound thereby, and that it will not affect the rights of those who are neither parties nor privies in the suit and who have never had an opportunity to be heard." See, in this connection, Hale v. Finch, 104 U.S. 261, 26 L. Ed. 732; Litchfield v. Goodnow's Administrator, 123 U.S. 549, 550, 551, 8 S. Ct. 210 ( 31 L. Ed. 199); Newby White v. Drainage District, 163 N.C. 24, 79 S.E. 266; Williams v. Hutton, 164 N.C. 216, 223, 80 S.E. 257. As respects the right to attack the legality of the organization of the drainage district collaterally, the statute of North Carolina will be seen to fully answer the same (Consolidated Statutes of N.C. vol.

  2. Reid v. Holden

    242 N.C. 408 (N.C. 1955)   Cited 55 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Implying that proximate cause is required for civil conspiracy claim seeking damages caused by acts done by one or more conspirators

    When properly raised, the issue will be determined according to the practice of the Court, but the defense is not available on a motion to dismiss. Williams v. Hutton Bourbonnais Co., 164 N.C. 216, 80 S.E. 257; Redmond v. Coffin, 17 N.C. 437; Bear v. Comrs. of Brunswick County, 124 N.C. 204, 32 S.E. 558."

  3. Erickson v. Starling

    235 N.C. 643 (N.C. 1952)   Cited 62 times
    Describing trial as the examination of the issues between the parties, for the purpose of determining such issues

    . 15; Smith v. Turnage-Winslow Co., 212 N.C. 310, 193 S.E. 685; Petty v. Insurance Co., 210 N.C. 500, 187 S.E. 816; Mitchell v. Strickland, supra; Bessire Co. v. Ward, 206 N.C. 858, 175 S.E. 208; Hafleigh v. Crossingham, 206 N.C. 333, 173 S.E. 619; Trust Co. v. Wilder, 206 N.C. 124, 172 S.E. 884; Bank v. Vance, 205 N.C. 103, 170 S.E. 119; Foster v. Moore, 204 N.C. 9, 167 S.E. 383; Commissioner of Banks v. Johnson, 202 N.C. 387, 162 S.E. 895; Keys v. Tuten, 199 N.C. 368, 154 S.E. 631; Harvey v. Oettinger, 194 N.C. 483, 140 S.E. 86; Barnes v. Trust Co., 194 N.C. 371, 139 S.E. 689; Brinson v. Morris, 192 N.C. 214, 134 S.E. 453; Pridgen v. Pridgen, supra; Sanders v. Mayo, 186 N.C. 108, 118 S.E. 910; Public Service Co. v. Power Co., 181 N.C. 356, 107 S.E. 226; Churchwell v. Trust Co., supra; Willis v. Williams, 174 N.C. 769, 94 S.E. 513; Barbee v. Penny, 174 N.C. 571, 94 S.E. 295; Moore v. Bank, 173 N.C. 180, 91 S.E. 793; Alston v. Hill, supra; Newsome v. Bank, 165 N.C. 91, 80 S.E. 1062; Williams v. Hutton, 164 N.C. 216, 80 S.E. 257; Cotton Mills v. Hosiery Mills, 154 N.C. 462, 70 S.E. 910; Helms v. Holton, supra; Penny v. Ludwick, 152 N.C. 375, 67 S.E. 919; Lewis v. Foard, 112 N.C. 402, 17 S.E. 9; 71 C.J.S., Pleading, section 429. As a consequence, it is not proper to enter a partial judgment on the pleadings for a part of a litigant's claim, leaving controverted issues of fact relating to other parts of such claim open for subsequent trial.

  4. Miller v. Grimsley

    17 S.E.2d 642 (N.C. 1941)   Cited 6 times

    Under our present system of pleading plaintiffs were under no compulsion to file a reply to the answer, whether it be regarded as setting up a counterclaim as plaintiffs contend, or otherwise. No service of answer having been made upon them or their attorney or attorneys of record, the law denies the counterclaim for them. C. S., 524; Simonv. Masters, 192 N.C. 731, 135 S.E. 861; Fishblate v. Fidelity Co., 140 N.C. 589, 594, 53 S.E. 354; Williams v. Hutton, 164 N.C. 216, 80 S.E. 257; Smith v. Bruton, 137 N.C. 79, 49 S.E. 64. It was proper for them to reply, if they saw fit, to new matter appearing by way of counterclaim, denying the same or alleging "any new matter not inconsistent with the complaint" constituting a defense thereto. C. S., 525.

  5. Sanderson v. Insurance Co.

    10 S.E.2d 802 (N.C. 1940)   Cited 2 times

    When properly raised, the issue will be determined according to the practice of the Court, but the defense is not available on a motion to dismiss. Williams v. Hutton Bourbonnais Co., 164 N.C. 216, 80 S.E. 257; Redmond v. Coffin, 17 N.C. 437; Bear v. Comrs. of Brunswick County, 124 N.C. 204, 32 S.E. 558. There was no error in continuing this motion. 2.

  6. Lykes v. Grove

    159 S.E. 360 (N.C. 1931)   Cited 19 times

    See, also, valuable opinion of Cothran, J., in the case of McMahan v. McMahan, 115 S.E. 293, 26 A.L.R., 1295. It should be observed, perhaps, that we are not dealing with inconsistent (McLamb v. McPhail, 126 N.C. 218, 35 S.E. 426) or contradictory (Upton v. R. R., 128 N.C. 173, 38 S.E. 736) defenses, set forth by answer, such as are permitted under C. S., 522. Williams v. Hutton, 164 N.C. 216, 80 S.E. 257. It is equally clear, we think, that the trial court ruled correctly in entering judgment as of nonsuit on the plaintiff's first cause of action.

  7. Refining Co. v. McKernan

    102 S.E. 505 (N.C. 1920)   Cited 9 times

    The act having become unlawful, the position may be made effective at any time pending the proceedings when it is properly brought to the attention of the Court. Williams v. Hutton, 164 N.C. 216; Brinson v. Duplin Co., 173 N.C. 137; Wikel v. Comrs., 120 N.C. 451; Hall v. State, 82 Ala. 563. On the facts present, we are of opinion that the application must be denied, and it is so ordered.

  8. Dixon v. Green

    100 S.E. 262 (N.C. 1919)   Cited 7 times

    The defendant could plead double, and set up inconsistent or contradictory defenses. McLamb v. McPhail, 126 N.C. 218; Williams v. Hutton, 164 N.C. 216; Clark's Code (3d Ed.), sec. 245; 1 Pell's Revisal, p. 226, sec. 482, and note with cases. It may be that in the development of the case the defendant's proof may not sustain her allegations of fraud and undue influence, but what she has charged is sufficient in law and entitles her to be heard before the jury.