Legal Opinion

Honeycutt v. Watkins

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 13, 1909PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Appeal by defendant from Lyon, J., April Term, 1909, of Wake.

1Opinion of the Court

Pee CuRiam :

Tbe motion to dismiss must be allowed. Tbe appeal is in forma pauperis, and tbe affidavit is fatally defective, in tbat it does not contain tbe averment required by tbe first proviso in Eevisal, sec. 597, tbat tbe appellant “is advised by counsel learned in tbe law tbat there is error, in matter of law, in tbe decision of tbe Superior Court.”

Giving bond on appeal, or tbe granting leave to appeal without bond, are jurisdictional, and, unless tbe statute is complied with, tbe appeal is not in this Court, and we can take no cognizance of tbe case, except to dismiss it from our…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. Atkinson.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  2. State v. . PayneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
  3. State v. . GatewoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1899
  4. State v. . HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
  5. State v. BrambleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1897

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Pruitt v. WoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  2. Riggan v. . HarrisonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  3. Brown Ex Rel. Brown v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
  4. Hanna v. . TimberlakeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  5. Lupton v. . HawkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API