Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina
Schnibben v. . Ballard Ballard Co.
210 N.C. 193
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of North Carolina
- Jurisdiction
- North Carolina
- Date
- 1936-05-20
- Topic
- general
Per Curiam. The defendants filed answer to the complaint. By so doing they waived any right to demur to the complaint except upon the first and last grounds stated in C. S., 511, namely, that “the court has no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant or of the subject of the action,” and “the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” Ransom v. McClees, 64 N.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Schnibben v. . Ballard Ballard Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 2 opinions
The defendants filed answer to the complaint. By so doing they waived any right to demur to the complaint except upon the first and last grounds stated in C. S., 511, namely, that “the court has no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant or of the subject of the action,” and “the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” Ransom v. McClees, 64 N. C., 17; Finch v. Baskerville, 85 N. C., 205; Goldsboro v. Supply Co., 200 N. C., 405, and cases there cited; McIntosh’s N. C. Prac. and Proc., pp. 457, 458. The rather elaborate demurrer filed is not based upon either of these grounds, and could not have been sustained had it been so based. True, the demurrer filed was to the amended complaint, but, in the language of the appel- *194 lant’s brief, page 3, “the amended complaint is substantially the same as the original complaint.” Certainly, the amendment adds nothing to the original complaint and takes nothing from it which nullifies the waiver of the right to demur caused by the filing of an answer.
Affirmed.