Abernethy v. . Burns

173 S.E. 899, 206 N.C. 370, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 188
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedApril 11, 1934
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 173 S.E. 899 (Abernethy v. . Burns) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Abernethy v. . Burns, 173 S.E. 899, 206 N.C. 370, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 188 (N.C. 1934).

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

It was clearly within the discretion of the court, for cause shown, to place the case at the end of the trial docket. But it is provided by C. S., 401 that a party may appear “either in person or by attorney in actions or proceedings in which he is interested.” Thus, the provision requiring plaintiff to employ counsel would seem to be at variance with the statute.

It is the general holding that a party has the right to appear in propria persona or by counsel. This right is alternative. A party has no right to appear both by himself and by counsel. Nor should he be *371 permitted ex gratia to do so. Talbot v. Talbot's Reps., 25 Marshall’s Reports (Ky.), 3; Comrs. v. Younger, 29 Cal., 147, 87 Am. Dec., 164, and note; 4 C. J., 1322; 2 R. C. L., 937.

In the instant case, the plaintiff prefers “to go it alone.” This is bis right. He may not get to first base, but he is entitled to come to the bat.

The order will be modified as indicated, and, as thus modified, it will be affirmed.

Modified and affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Hernandez
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2026
State v. Farook
Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2022
O'Neal v. Murray
411 S.E.2d 628 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1992)
Lizarríbar v. Martínez Gelpí
121 P.R. Dec. 770 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1988)
Cersosimo v. Cersosimo
449 A.2d 1026 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1982)
Hamlin v. Hamlin
276 S.E.2d 381 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1981)
Hickman v. Frerking
609 P.2d 682 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1980)
State v. House
244 S.E.2d 654 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1978)
Westberry v. State
254 A.2d 44 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1969)
DIZE AWNING AND TENT CO. v. City of Winston-Salem
157 S.E.2d 577 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)
State v. Phillip
134 S.E.2d 386 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)
Watters Ex Rel. Watters v. Parrish
115 S.E.2d 1 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)
State v. Taylor
49 S.E.2d 749 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
State v. . Pritchard
41 S.E.2d 287 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1947)
New Hanover County v. . Sidbury
36 S.E.2d 242 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1945)
McClamroch v. Colonial Ice Co.
6 S.E.2d 850 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Abernethy v. . Morrison
2 S.E.2d 369 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
Gliwa v. United States Steel Corp.
3 A.2d 778 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1938)
In Re Disabarment of West
193 S.E. 134 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Abernethy v. . Burns
188 S.E. 97 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
173 S.E. 899, 206 N.C. 370, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abernethy-v-burns-nc-1934.