Hicks v. . Royal
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil action tried before MeZams, J., at January Term, 1898, of New Hanover Superior Court. There was a judgment for the defendants and plaintiff appealed. In this Court the defendant (appellee) moved to dismiss under Rule 28.
1Per curiam
An exhibit which is made a part of the pleadings and is material to understanding the plea of < ‘another action pending for the same' cause” is not printed. Even under the former rule, the motion to dismiss would have been allowed. Fleming v. McPhail, 121 N. C., 183; Barnes v. Crawford, 119 N. C., 127. Much the more so is this true under the present Rule 28, (121 N. C., 695) which, to avoid just such disputes as to the materiality of omitted parts, requires the entire transcript on appeal to be printed.
Appeal dismissed.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Barnes v. . CrawfordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
- Fleming v. . McPhailSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1897
3Cited by1 opinion
- Cudworth v. Reserve Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1956