Legal Opinion

Hanna v. . Timberlake

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 23, 1932PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

The Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and the same will be dismissed on authority of Honeycutt v. Watkins, 151 N. C., 652, 65 S. E., 762.

The attempted appeal is in forma pauperis, and the affidavit, filed more than ten days after entry of judgment, is defective, in that, it does not contain the averment, required by C. S., 649, that appellant “is advised by counsel learned in the law that there is error of law in the decision of the Superior Court in said action.” This is a jurisdictional requirement. Riggan v. Harrison, ante, 191; Russell v. Hearne, 113 N. C., 361, 18 S.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Honeycutt v. WatkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
  2. State v. . Divine and AnotherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1873
  3. State v. . GatewoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1899
  4. State v. HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
  5. State v. . HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Lupton v. . HawkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  2. Berwer v. Union Central Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  3. Williams v. . TillmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  4. Clark v. . ClarkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
  5. Gilmore v. Imperial Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939

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

Powered by the Exa API