Stickney v. . Cox
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Certiorari, before Foible J., at Fall Term 1867 of the Superior Court of Pitt. The petitioner had brought an action of debt against the defendants, in the County Court. Having been nonsuited, he appealed; but from a misunderstanding upon that point by his attorney, no appeal bond was given. In the Superior Court the defendants moved to dismiss the appeal for want of a bond.
Read the full summary
Certiorari, before Foible J., at Fall Term 1867 of the Superior Court of Pitt. The petitioner had brought an action of debt against the defendants, in the County Court. Having been nonsuited, he appealed; but from a misunderstanding upon that point by his attorney, no appeal bond was given. In the Superior Court the defendants moved to dismiss the appeal for want of a bond. Thereupon the plaintiff offered to file such bond but the court declined to allow it, and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff then filed this petition setting forth the facts upon which arose the misunderstanding that no…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
We agree with his Honor in the court below that the cause ought to have been placed on the trial docket. We are inclined to think upon the authority of the cases of McDowell v. Bradley, 8 Ire., 92, and Robinson v. Bryan, 12 Ire., 183, that his Honor would have been warranted in allowing the plaintiff to file an appeal bond, in answer to the motion of the defendant to dismiss the appeal for the want of a bond. In both those cases the appeal bonds were so defective, that new bonds had to be filed to sustain the appeal which the appellant had craved in the County Court and which he was desirous…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Murray v. . ShanklinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1838