midpage

Hardy v. . DahlHardy v. . Dahl

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Mar 18, 1936
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Per Curiam.
Per Curiam.

This is an action to recover damages for the death of the plaintiff’s intestate, alleged ‍‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‍to have been caused by the wrongful and negligent acts of the defendant in purporting to treat said intestate while ill with diphtheria. The complaint is rather long and elaborate and the ‍‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‍judge of the Superior Court held that some of the allegations of the complaint assailed by the motion should be stricken therefrom. To this portion of the order there was no exception. ‍‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‍The judge, however, was evidently of the opinion that the other allegations of the complaint assailed by the motion to strike could better be determined by rulings upon the competency of the ‍‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‍evidence, if and when offered, than by undertaking to chart the course of the trial by passing upon allegations as yet undenied, and for this reason disallowed the motion in part. In ‍‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‍this we see no error. Pemberton v. Greensboro, 205 N. C., 599. The order appealed from is accordingly

Affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Hardy v. . Dahl
Court Name: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Date Published: Mar 18, 1936
Citations: 209 N.C. 746; 184 S.E. 480; 1936 N.C. LEXIS 340
Court Abbreviation: N.C.
Log In