{
  "id": 8613204,
  "name": "W. A. SEAWELL v. CHAS. COLE & CO., Inc., and S. F. COLE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Seawell v. Chas. Cole & Co.",
  "decision_date": "1927-11-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "546",
  "last_page": "547",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 N.C. 546"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "192 N. C., 246",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621194
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/192/0246-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 N. C., 527",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 270,
    "char_count": 3655,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.471,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.536171649295015e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9468223823087756
    },
    "sha256": "363dd65afde9bb4f4e1142089651e651a6a544d86d168c08e4ed0ea8d669efe6",
    "simhash": "1:b76bf649dbb4df69",
    "word_count": 638
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:29.544042+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. A. SEAWELL v. CHAS. COLE & CO., Inc., and S. F. COLE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OlaeKsoN, J.\nAnother branch of this matter was before this Court. See Johnson, Admr., v. Leavitt, 188 N. C., p. 682.\nThe record discloses that the defendants\u2019 counsel \u201cthereupon demurred ore tenus for that the complaint does not state a cause of action. The court thereupon dictated to the clerk its order and judgment sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the action, to which the plaintiff excepted and appealed to the Supreme Court.\u201d No counsel appeared in this Court for the defendant, and the demurrer was not renewed in this Court. C..S.,.512, is as follows: \u201cThe demurrer must distinctly specify the grounds of objection to the complaint, or it may be disregarded. It may be taken to the whole complaint, or to any of the alleged causes of action stated therein.\u201d\nIn Elam v. Barnes, 110 N. C., p. 73, the facts were similar, it is said, at p. 74: \u201cIt is but fair, however, to the opposite side that the court below should require, as the statute demands, that the demurrer, even when made ore tenus, should point out the alleged defect, since it gives opportunity to ask for an amendment if the defect admits of cure, or permits further costs to be avoided if the defect is incurable, since the party, upon the particulars being indicated, may become satisfied of the invalidity of his cause of action and discontinue further proceedings. This would seem to be the reason of the statute, at any rate its provisions are clear and should be observed.\u201d\n. In the Elam case, supra, this Court looked into the record and dismissed the action. In the present action, we will reiterate well settled law in this jurisdiction: \u201cBut when a case is presented on demurrer, we are required by the statute, C. S., 535, to construe the complaint liberally, 'with a view to substantial justice between the parties,\u2019 and in enforcing this provision we have adopted the rule 'that if in any portion of it or to any extent it presents facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, or if facts sufficient for that purpose can be fairly gathered from it, the pleading will stand, however inartificially it may have been drawn or however uncertain, defective and redundant may be its statements, for, \u25a0 contrary to the common-law rule, every reasonable intendment and presumption must be made in favor of the pleader.\u2019 \u201d S. v. Bank, 193 N. C., 527, and cases cited. Foy v. Stephens, 168 N. C., p. 438; S. v. Trust Co., 192 N. C., 246.\nIt is said in S. v. McCanless, 193 N. C., at p. 206, \u201cIf any of the causes of action are good, the demurrer cannot be sustained.\u201d\nIn Snipes v. Monds, 190 N. C., at p. 191, it is said: \u201cEven after answering in the trial court, or in this Court, a defendant may demur ore tenus, or the Court may raise the question ex mero motu that the complaint does not state a cause of action.\u201d The judgment is\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "OlaeKsoN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "H. F. Seawell & Son for plaintiff."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. A. SEAWELL v. CHAS. COLE & CO., Inc., and S. F. COLE.\n(Filed 16 November, 1927.)\n1. Pleadings \u2014 Demurrer Ore Tenus \u2014 Statutes.\nA demurrer to the complaint ore tenus must distinctly specify the grounds of objection or it may be disregarded.\n2. Same \u2014 Appeal and Error \u2014 Courts\u2014Ex Mero Motu.\nThe Supreme Court may, eos mero motu, look into the record to ascertain if the complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action.\n3. Same \u2014 Pleadings Liberally Interpreted.\nUpon the inquiry as to whether the complaint states a cause of action, it will be liberally construed with every reasonable intendment therefrom in the plaintiff\u2019s .favor, however uncertain, defective and redundant its allegations may be drawn.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Stack, J., at February Term, 1927, of Mooee.\nReversed.\nH. F. Seawell & Son for plaintiff."
  },
  "file_name": "0546-01",
  "first_page_order": 614,
  "last_page_order": 615
}