Bank of Statesville v. Bogle

Rufetn, J. The stress of the-argument in this court was Üaid upon the sufficiency of -the answer, in setting up the ■defence of the statute of limitations — the plaintiff contending that as pleaded without any statement of facts to support it, it was but a mere announcement of a conclusion of law. We do not feel at liberty, however, to go into that ■question, as. the demurrer itself is so defective as to require that it should be disregarded: A general demurrer that the-complaint .(or answer) does •not set forth facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action ¡(or defence) should be overruled,' or rather, disregarded.” Love v. Commissioners of Chatham, 64 N. C., 706. However much the correctness of the decision of the court in that case may have been questioned at the time, it has stood too long, and been to often approved, to admit of it at this late day- No error. Affirmed.