Case ID: nc_242/html/0122-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "JOHNSON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

C. R. AMMONS v. JOEL G. LAYTON, JR.
    (Filed 13 April, 1955.)
    1. Appeal and Error § 40f—
    The denial of defendant’s motion to strike certain allegations from the complaint will not be disturbed on appeal when it is not made to appear that defendant is prejudiced by the allegations challenged.
    2. Appeal and Error § 29—
    An assignment of error not brought forward in the brief is deemed abandoned.
    Barnhill, C. J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
    Appeal by defendant from Martin, Special Judge, at September Civil Term, 1954, of HaRNETT.
    Civil action for slander.
    The defendant, before answering or otherwise pleading, moved to strike all of Paragraphs 4 and 5 and portions of Paragraphs 6 to 13, inclusive, of the complaint. The court ruled that certain portions of Paragraphs 5, 6, 12, and 13 should be stricken, but that otherwise the motion should be denied.
    To the order entered in accordance with the foregoing ruling, the defendant excepted so far as the motion to strike was overruled in any part, and appealed.
    
      Taylor, Spence & Taylor and Douglass & McMillan for plaintiff, appellee.
    
    
      Wilson & Johnson and Clem B. Holding for defendant, appellant.
    
   JOHNSON, J.

The essential rules governing appeals from lower court rulings on motions to strike are collected and assembled in Daniel v. Gardner, 240 N.C. 249, 81 S.E. 2d 660. Under application of the prin- . ciples there stated, we conclude it has not been made to appear that the defendant will be prejudiced by the allegations challenged on this appeal. See Ledford v. Transportation Co., 237 N.C. 317, 74 S.E. 2d 653; Hinson v. Britt, 232 N.C. 379, 61 S.E. 2d 185. See also Wright v. Credit Co., 212 N.C. 87, 192 S.E. 844 ; 33 Am. Jur., Libel and Slander, sections 236 and 241.

It is noted that the assignment of error relating to Paragraph 4 of the complaint is not brought forward in the brief. Hence this assignment is treated as abandoned. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N.C. 544; S. v. Cole, 241 N.C. 576, 86 S.E. 2d 203.

The order entered below is

Affirmed.

BaRNHIll, C. J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.