History
  • No items yet
midpage
Ammons v. Layton
242 N.C. 122
N.C.
1955
Check Treatment
JOHNSON, J.

The essential rules governing appeals from lower court rulings on motions to strike are collected and assembled in Daniel v. Gardner, 240 N.C. 249, 81 S.E. 2d 660. Under application of the prin- . ciples there stated, we conclude it has not been made to appear that the defendant will be prejudiced by the allegations challenged on this appeal. See Ledford v. Transportation Co., 237 N.C. 317, 74 S.E. 2d 653; Hinson v. Britt, 232 N.C. 379, 61 S.E. 2d 185. See also Wright v. Credit Co., 212 N.C. 87, 192 S.E. 844 ; 33 Am. Jur., Libel and Slander, sections 236 and 241.

It is noted that the assignment of error relating to Paragraph 4 of the complaint is not brought forward in the brief. Hence this assignment is treated as abandoned. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N.C. 544; S. v. Cole, 241 N.C. 576, 86 S.E. 2d 203.

*123The order entered below is

Affirmed.

BaRNHIll, C. J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Case Details

Case Name: Ammons v. Layton
Court Name: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Date Published: Apr 13, 1955
Citation: 242 N.C. 122
Court Abbreviation: N.C.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.