Harmon v. . Herndon
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal— Undertaking — Presumption. At the Fall Term, 1886, of the Superior Court of the-County of CLEVELAND, held in the month of October, of that year, Graves, J., presiding, the plaintiffs, appellees, obtained judgment in that Court against the defendants, from which the latter appealed to this Court. The Court made on the minutes of its proceedings in the-case, this entry: “Defendants allowed thirty days to tender-case and file appeal bond.”
Read the full summary
Appeal— Undertaking — Presumption. At the Fall Term, 1886, of the Superior Court of the-County of CLEVELAND, held in the month of October, of that year, Graves, J., presiding, the plaintiffs, appellees, obtained judgment in that Court against the defendants, from which the latter appealed to this Court. The Court made on the minutes of its proceedings in the-case, this entry: “Defendants allowed thirty days to tender-case and file appeal bond.” The undertaking on appeal is^ filed without date, except that it was justified — just under it on the same paper — on the 7th day of February, 1887.…
1Opinion of the CourtMerrimok, J.
We are constrained to allow the motion-It must be taken, nothing to the contrary appearing, that the undertaking on appeal was filed on the day it was justified, and this was quite three months next after the lapse of the time within which the Court directed that it might be filed. It was held in Boyden v. Williams, 92 N. C., 546, that if the ^undertaking on appeal is without date, and the justification thereof has a date, the latter date must be taken as the date of «the filing thereof. The appellants -might, however, have .-Shown that the undertaking was, in fact, filed within the time…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bowen v. . FoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
- Boyden v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885