Legal Opinion

Flinchum v. Doughton

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 13, 1931PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stacy, 0. J.

The defendant’s exceptions have not been passed upon either by the clerk or the judge, and under the order of continuance substantial rights are required to be waived to obtain a hearing of any kind. This is contrary to the usual course and practice of the courts. Carter v. Rountree, 109 N. C., 29, 13 S. E., 716. Furthermore, the order in question is not self-executing, and its terms, are conditional. Church v. Church, 158 N. C., 564, 74 S. E., 14. “Alternative or conditional judgments are void.” Lloyd v. Lumber Co., 167 N. C., 97, 83 S. E., 248.

The order will be vacated, to the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Carter v. . RountreeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
  2. United American Free-Will Baptist Church v. United American Free-Will Baptist ChurchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
  3. Lloyd v. Swansboro Land & Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  4. Church v. . ChurchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Myers v. . BarnhardtSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  2. Cassidy v. CheekSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  3. Hagedorn v. . HagedornSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  4. McCraw v. HamrickCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
  5. Luff v. . LeveySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API