Western Carolina Power Co. v. Klutz
WESTERN CAROLINA POWER COMPANY v. L. F. KLUTZ Et Al.
Opinion of the Court
*359 Stacy, 0. J.
Even if it be conceded that the present proceeding cannot properly be consolidated for trial with the three other condemnation proceedings pending in the Superior Court of Catawba County as petitioner alleges — which question is not presented and therefore not decided — still the motion to remove, on the grounds stated, “for the convenience of witnesses and to promote the ends of justice,” 0. S., 470, rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and is not reviewable on appeal.
Perry v. Perry, 172 N. C., 62 , 89 S. E., 999 ;
Byrd v. Spruce Co., 170 N. C., 429 , 87 S. E., 241 ;
Garrett v. Bear, 144 N. C., 23 , 56 S. E., 479 .
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.