Maddillon Engine & Thresher Co. v. Thomas
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal by defendant from Gime, J., at May Term, 1915, of Hat-wood. Action to recover $300 due. by note under seal executed by the defendant on 12 March, 1902, and payable on 1 January, 1903. A credit of $50 is indorsed on the note of 12 September, 1913, but the defendant alleges that he -was induced to make th'is payment by fraudulent representations, and he pleads the statute of limitations. The jury found that the payment was made and that it was not induced by fraud.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from Gime, J., at May Term, 1915, of Hat-wood. Action to recover $300 due. by note under seal executed by the defendant on 12 March, 1902, and payable on 1 January, 1903. A credit of $50 is indorsed on the note of 12 September, 1913, but the defendant alleges that he -was induced to make th'is payment by fraudulent representations, and he pleads the statute of limitations. The jury found that the payment was made and that it was not induced by fraud. There was a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed, assigning the following errors; The defendant…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Cubiam:.
The attention of tie profession has been called several times to the importance and necessity of setting forth in the assignments of error the grounds of the appeal, and that when this is not done the Court may of its own motion dismiss the appeal.
The number of appeals and the size of the records are constantly increasing, and the Court cannot properly perform its duties unless this rule is complied with.
The assignments of error in this record furnish no information to the Court, and we cannot see from them what error, if any, has been committed, and the appeal is therefore…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Cecil v. . Lumber CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
- Bridgers v. . GriffinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
- Poindexter v. . CallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935