Armstrong v. Home Service Stores, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Armstrong v. Home Service Stores, Inc.

165 S.E. 680, 203 N.C. 231, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 361

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 28, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 165 S.E. 680 (Armstrong v. Home Service Stores, Inc.) 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

Armstrong v. Home Service Stores, Inc., 165 S.E. 680, 203 N.C. 231, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 361 (N.C. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

From an order made at the February Term, 1932, Craven Superior Court, notice of appeal was entered by “Plaintiff, H. Bryan Duffy,” who was allowed thirty days to make out and serve *232 statement of ease on appeal, and “Defendant, Receiver,” given thirty days thereafter to prepare and file exceptions or conntercase. No statement of case on appeal has been settled by agreement or otherwise. The petition and answer upon which the claim was heard are not in the record. It is provided by Rule 19(1) that “the pleadings on which the ease is tried, the issues, and the judgment appealed from shall be a part of the transcript in all cases.” Failure to send up necessary parts of the record proper has uniformly resulted in dismissal of the appeal. Riggan v. Harrison, ante, 191; Everett v. Fair Association, 202 N. C., 838; Pruitt v. Wood, 199 N. C., 788, 156 S. E., 126; Waters v. Waters, ibid., 667, 155 S. E., 564.

Appellant’s statement of case was served 3 September, long after time for serving it had expired. Time for filing exceptions or countercase has not yet expired, if appellant’s statement was served under agreement of extension or waiver.

It may be presumed perhaps that a proceeding, entitled as above, is pending in the Superior Court of Craven County, though this fact has not been made to appear in any accredited way, except by the clerk’s certificate. The record is too meager to authorize a determination of the question sought to be presented.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Stacy, C. J.

From an order made at the February Term, 1932, Craven Superior Court, notice of appeal was entered by “Plaintiff, H. Bryan Duffy,” who was allowed thirty days to make out and serve *232 statement of ease on appeal, and “Defendant, Receiver,” given thirty days thereafter to prepare and file exceptions or conntercase. No statement of case on appeal has been settled by agreement or otherwise. The petition and answer upon which the claim was heard are not in the record. It is provided by Rule 19(1) that “the pleadings on which the ease is tried, the issues, and the judgment appealed from shall be a part of the transcript in all cases.” Failure to send up necessary parts of the record proper has uniformly resulted in dismissal of the appeal. Riggan v. Harrison, ante, 191; Everett v. Fair Association, 202 N. C., 838; Pruitt v. Wood, 199 N. C., 788, 156 S. E., 126; Waters v. Waters, ibid., 667, 155 S. E., 564.

Appellant’s statement of case was served 3 September, long after time for serving it had expired. Time for filing exceptions or countercase has not yet expired, if appellant’s statement was served under agreement of extension or waiver.

It may be presumed perhaps that a proceeding, entitled as above, is pending in the Superior Court of Craven County, though this fact has not been made to appear in any accredited way, except by the clerk’s certificate. The record is too meager to authorize a determination of the question sought to be presented.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 S.E. 680, 203 N.C. 231, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-home-service-stores-inc-nc-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack