Edwards v. Town of Henderson
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This is a MOTION to reinstate an appeal from the Superior Court of Vance County, which had been dismissed for failure to print the record as required by Rules 28-30.
1Opinion of the Court
Clark, J.:
The appellant says that he entrusted the duty of causing the record to be printed to his counsel. Counsel offer no excuse except that they were busy and forgot to have it done. The duty of having the record printed is not a professional one, since the client can attend to it himself, and might easily have it printed below and sent up with the transcript. Hence, if counsel assume to discharge such duty, they are pro hac vice agents, not counsel, and their neglect is the neglect of the party himself, as was held in Griffin v. Nelson, 106 N. C., 235, which has been cited with approval…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Horton v. . GreenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
- Rencher v. . AndersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
- Witt v. . LongSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
- Stephens v. . KoonceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- Griffin v. . NelsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Calvert v. Carstarphen.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
- Lee v. . BairdSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
- Cooper v. Board of Commissioners of Franklin CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
- Seawell v. Parsons Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- Dunn v. . UnderwoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.