The single imputed error “in signing the judgment,” presents only the question whether error appears on the face of the record.
While extraneous matters in a pleading may invite or attract a motion to strike, this does not put the pleader in a strait-jacket in respect of pertinent allegations. Hill v. Stansbury, 221 N.C. 339, 20 S.E. 2d 308. Nor is it the province of an appeal in such cases to have this Court chart the course of the trial in advance of the hearing. There seems little or nothing extraneous in the present complaint when viewed in the light of the apposite decisions on the subject. Reaves v. Power Co., 206 N.C. 523, 174 S.E. 413; Dover v. Mfg. Co., 157 N.C. 324, 72 S.E. 1067; Cotton v. Transp. Co., 197 N.C. 709, 150 S.E. 505; Russell v. Cutshall, 223 N.C. 353, 26 S.E. 2d 866.
In addition, the reasons assigned by the trial court, bring the case clearly within the principle of Parker v. Duke University, 230 N.C. 656, 55 S.E. 2d 189. The case is controlled by the decision in that case.
Affirmed.