affirming the trial court’s finding that “the interest of the respective council members [, who were executives in financial institutions in direct competition with the defendant,] . . . was too remote and infinitesimal to give rise to a conflict of interest” (internal quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- affirming the trial court’s finding that “the interest of the respective council members [, who were executives in financial institutions in direct competition with the defendant,] . . . was too remote and infinitesimal to give rise to a conflict of interest” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- “The absence of a necessary party under Rule 19, N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure, does not merit dismissal of the action.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Chief Judge HEDRICK
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority, but I would vote to dismiss the appeal. Defendants have appealed from an order striking certain of their defenses. In the order appealed from, the trial court expressly stated:
This cause is retained for further hearing upon the Third Defense set out in the answer of the Defendant Security Bank relating to the issue of damages suffered the defendant by the taking of its land.
Obviously, this is not a final judgment and does not deprive defendant of a substantial right within the meaning of G.S. 1-277. No good is served by our consideration of these fragmentary appeals.