Teasley v. Teasley
Jesse Teasley v. Clara D. Teasley.
Opinion of the Court
Stacy, C. J.
As we understand the record, the further averment of the answer, which the plaintiff seeks to have stricken out, is but an elaboration of the denial, previously made, of the allegation that the *605 parties Lave lived separate and apart for two years within the meaning of chapter 163, Public Laws, 1933.
If the motion were allowed, the case would still remain on the docket as a contested case; and, in view of the affidavits relative to “the truth concerning the separation,” we are not disposed to try to chart the course of the trial in advance of the hearing upon its merits.
Pemberton v. Greensboro, ante, 599. It is not perceived that any harm has come to the plaintiff from the court’s action, or that any injury is likely to result therefrom. The ruling will not be disturbed on the record as presented.
Indeed, it may be doubted whether the ruling affects such a substantial right as to make it appealable.
Billings v. Observer, 150 N. C., 540 , 64 S. E., 435 ;
Rogerson v. Lumber Co., 136 N. C., 266 , 48 S. E., 647 ;
Lutz v. Cline, 89 N. C., 186 . The evidence as to the true nature of the separation would be competent with or without the explanatory allegation.
The case is not like Deloatch v. Vinson, 108 N. C., 147 , 12 S. E., 895 , cited and relied upon by plaintiff, or Ellis v. Ellis, 198 N. C., 767 , 153 S. E., 449 .
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.