Harrison v. . Hoff
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was a motion by appellee to dismiss the appeal, and a counter motion by appellant to be allowed to rile undertaking in this Court.
Read the full summary
This was a motion by appellee to dismiss the appeal, and a counter motion by appellant to be allowed to rile undertaking in this Court. At the present term, appellee therein moved to dismiss this appeal upon the ground that the undertaking on appeal was not riled within ten days next after the rendition of the judgment appealed from at the last Fall Term of the Court wherein it was given, which ended on the 23d day of October, 1888. It appears that such undertaking was not given within that time, but was filed on the 12th day of November next thereafter, and the appellant insists that he has…
1Opinion of the CourtMekrimoN, J.
(after stating the case). Under the strict statutory provision'applicable (The Code, §§549, 552), the appellee would be entitled to have his motion allowed for the cause assigned, as has been decided by many cases, and the appellant would lose his appeal, unless,for good cause shown, he should be allowed to brmg it into this Court by the writ of certiorari.
But the General Assembly has modified the rigor of the statute by an act passed at its present session, ratified on the 16th day of February, 1889, which, among other things, provides as follows: “ And when no undertaking on appeal has been…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Allen v. . SalingerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
3Cited by6 opinions
- Vivian v. . MitchellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
- Hawkins v. . Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
- Hawkins v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
- Jones v. City of AshevilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
- Waynesville Transportation Co. v. Waynesville Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.