Best v. Lancaster

36 S.E. 126, 126 N.C. 560, 1900 N.C. LEXIS 282
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMay 22, 1900
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 36 S.E. 126 (Best v. Lancaster) 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
Best v. Lancaster, 36 S.E. 126, 126 N.C. 560, 1900 N.C. LEXIS 282 (N.C. 1900).

Opinions

The plaintiffs moved to remand to the clerk, motion disallowed. Plaintiffs excepted. Plaintiffs moved for judgment for insufficient verification of answer. Motion disallowed, being met by counter-motion to amend the verification of answer on part of defendants.

Plaintiffs excepted and appealed. This was a proceeding to correct a mistake in a partition under The Code, sec. 1918, and was transferred by the clerk to the civil issue docket upon issues joined. In the Superior Court a motion by the plaintiff to remand to the clerk, without trial of the issue, (561) was denied. A motion for judgment on the ground of insufficient verification of the answer, was met by a counter-motion to permit a new verification, which was allowed. Thereupon the plaintiff appealed.

The appeal is premature. The plaintiff should have had his exceptions noted in the record, and on the appeal from the final judgment the rulings excepted to would have come up for review. There is no judgment to appeal from, but simply the refusal of a motion to remand and the allowance of a verification.

In Kruger v. Bank, 123 N.C. 16, there was no answer and no time allowed to file answer, or to demur, and the refusal of judgment under such circumstances was the denial of a substantial right given by sec. 386, of The Code. Phifer v. Insurance Co., 123 N.C. 410, and Cole v. Boyd,125 N.C. 496, held that the verification of the complaint being insufficient, a judgment by default final should be corrected into default and inquiry, but it was not held that the court could not permit a proper verification. As was said by Merrimon, J., in Grant v. Reese,90 N.C. 3, "Slight attention to the decisions of the Court would prevent miscarriages like the present and facilitate the administration of justice."

Appeal dismissed. Cited: Cantwell v. Herring, 127 N.C. 84.

(563)

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

Related

Cantwell v. Herring.
37 S.E. 140 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 S.E. 126, 126 N.C. 560, 1900 N.C. LEXIS 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/best-v-lancaster-nc-1900.