{ "id": 8575501, "name": "JESSE NOAH WILLIAMS and wife, ELLEN WILLIAMS, t/a SMITHFIELD LIVESTOCK EXCHANGE, INC. v. JOHN N. DENNING, C. L. DENNING and KENNETH WESTBROOK, t/a DENNING-WESTBROOK OIL COMPANY, INC.", "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Denning", "decision_date": "1963-11-20", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "539", "last_page": "540", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "260 N.C. 539" } ], "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": "13 S.E. 2d 265", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "219 N.C. 139", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621412 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/219/0139-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 U.S. 426", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 443566 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/189/0426-01" ] }, { "cite": "254 N.C. 785", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "254 N.C. 797", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 265, "char_count": 3478, "ocr_confidence": 0.396, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.330650634697051e-08, "percentile": 0.5134760752460857 }, "sha256": "3f9cf68d64a3c0589f8dd713ad6a686060769d6a469cf326d2087be928d90b3b", "simhash": "1:d0da25afe7b4be23", "word_count": 582 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:49:29.885963+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "JESSE NOAH WILLIAMS and wife, ELLEN WILLIAMS, t/a SMITHFIELD LIVESTOCK EXCHANGE, INC. v. JOHN N. DENNING, C. L. DENNING and KENNETH WESTBROOK, t/a DENNING-WESTBROOK OIL COMPANY, INC." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PER C\u00fcRIAm.\nPlaintiff took eleven exceptions1 \u2014 ten to the order \u00a1sustaining defendants\u2019 motion to strike, one to the refusal to allow its motion for judgment \u00a1by default.\nThe exceptions are no|t grouped 'in the record as required by Rule 19(3) of the Court (254 N.C. 797). An order striking allegations contained in \u00a1a pleading is not appealable. The remedy, if tire order is deemed erroneous, isiby certiorari. Rule 4(a) (2) (254 N.C. 785).\nPlaintiff\u2019s pleadings are a complaint, G.S. 1-121, and a reply, G.S. 1-140. Defendants pleadings \u00a1are m answer and a demurrer, G.S. 1-124. A motion, is >an application for 'an order, G.S. 1-578. It is not a pleading within the meaning of G.S. 1-144. Brownfield v. South Carolina, 189 U.S. 426, 47 L. ed. 882.\nThe order allowing plaintiff to file an amended complaint and defendant .time thereafter to answer was made in the court\u2019s discretion and as such is not reviewabie in the absence of manifest abuse, which is not here suggested. Osborne v. Canton, 219 N.C. 139, 13 S.E. 2d 265.\nAppeal dismissed.", "type": "majority", "author": "PER C\u00fcRIAm." } ], "attorneys": [ "E. R\u201e Temple for plaintiff appellant.", "Shepard, Spence \u2022& Mast by Norman C. Shepard for defendant ap-pellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JESSE NOAH WILLIAMS and wife, ELLEN WILLIAMS, t/a SMITHFIELD LIVESTOCK EXCHANGE, INC. v. JOHN N. DENNING, C. L. DENNING and KENNETH WESTBROOK, t/a DENNING-WESTBROOK OIL COMPANY, INC.\n(Filed 20 November 1963.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 19\u2014\nThe exceptions must be grouped in the assignments o\u00ed error. Rule 19(3).\n2. Appeal and Error \u00a7 3\u2014\nAn order striking allegation\u00ae contained in a pleading is not appealable \u25a0and may be reviewed prior to trial only by certiorari. Rule 4(a) (2).\n3. Judgments \u00a7 13\u2014\nJudgment by default may no,t be entered pending tbe hearing of a motion to strike on the ground 'that the motion was not verified, since a mo-rion is not a pleading within the meaning of G.S. 1-144.\n4. Appeal and Error \u00a7 3\u2014\nAn order allowing the filing of an amended complaint, made in the discretion of the court, is not reviewable in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion.\nAppeal by 'Corporate plaintiff from Braswell, J., June 1963 Criminal Session of Johnston.\nThe complaint, stripped of useless verbiage, alleges these facte: Corporate plaintiff in 1962 leased its truck to 'corporate defendant to haul gasoline; lessee was to pay for tbe use of the truck $80 per trip; it made forty-one trips for which it owed corporate plaintiff $3,280; defendant falsely /and fraudulently promised to pay the agreed rental but had failed to pay;- because of the failure to .pay, plaintiff was entitled to recover $3,280 icompensatory damages and $10,000 punitive damages; -it wais, Iby virtue of G.S. 44-1, entitled to a materialman\u2019s lien to the extent of the unpaid rental charges on all the assets of corporate defendant. The icomplaint was verified.\nNamed defendants, in apt time, filed a motion to strike ten designated- portions of the complaint. The motion was not verified.- '\nAfter defend\u00edante filed their motion.\u2019 to strike and more than thirty day's 'after the service of 'summons plaintiff moved for judgment by default final for the sum of $3,280, for that defendants\u2019 motion to strike wais nlot verified.\nJudge Braswell heard the motion\u00ae. He allowed defenidamits\u2019 motion to strike each of .the ten portions of the complaint. He denied plaintiff\u2019\u00ae motion for judgment by default final. Pie 'allowed plaintiff thirty days in which .it could file \u00a1an lanaenided complaint. Corporate plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nE. R\u201e Temple for plaintiff appellant.\nShepard, Spence \u2022& Mast by Norman C. Shepard for defendant ap-pellees." }, "file_name": "0539-01", "first_page_order": 579, "last_page_order": 580 }