Guano Company v. . Hicks
Supreme Court of North Carolina
PetitioN by the defendant for a writ of certiorari to bring up a case on appeal which was not .served within the time limited for the service.
1Opinion of the Court
Claeic, J.:
The time in which to serve “the case on appeal” must be counted from the actual adjournment of the court. Rosenthal v. Robertson, 114 N. C., 594; Delafield v. Construction Co., 115 N. C., 21; Worthy v. Brady, 91 N. C., 265; Turrentine v. Railroad, 92 N. C., 642; Chamblee v. Baker, 95. N C., 98; Walker v. Scott, 104. C., 481. The court having adjourned on October 31, the “30 days” agreed upon, in lieu of the statutory ten days, in which to serve the case on appeal, expired on November 30 (the last day not being Sunday). Code, sec. 596; Bancroft v. Roberts, 92 N. C., 249. The…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- State v. FullerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
- Pittman v. . KimberlySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
- Cummings v. . HoffmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
- Porter v. Western North Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- Peebles v. . BraswellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Pruitt v. WoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
- Pruitt v. . WoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
- State v. . MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- State v. MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Bell v. . NivensSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.