Wiley v. Bessemer City Mining Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil actioN, beard before Tvmherlahe, J., at E'all Term, 1895, of GastoN Superior Court. Tbe plaintiff appealed. In tbis Court tbe defendant moved to dismiss for failure of appellant to print necessary parts of tbe record.
1Opinion of the Court
Claek, J.:
Rule 28 requires tbe printing “of so much and such parts of tbe record as may be necessary to a proper understanding of tbe exceptions and grounds of error assigned.” Tbe power of tbe Court to make sucb rule, and tbe necessity for it, are stated in Horton v. Green, 104 N. C., 400; Hunt v. Railroad, 107 N. C., 447, and numerous other cases. To prevent any possible misconception of tbe rule, it was enlarged and made more specific in 115 N. C., pp. 843-844.
When this case was reached on tbe regular call of tbe docket, the appellant did not aid us by supporting his grounds of appeal,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Horton v. . GreenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
- Paine v. . CuretonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
- Hunt v. Richmond & Danville RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- Carter v. LongSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
3Cited by5 opinions
- Anniston National Bank v. School CommitteeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
- Eno Investment Co. v. Protective Chemicals Laboratory, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- Fleming v. . McPhailSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1897
- Causey v. Empire Plaid MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
- Garrett v. . PegramSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1897