Blount v. . Blount

73 S.E. 996, 158 N.C. 312, 1912 N.C. LEXIS 37
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMarch 6, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 73 S.E. 996 (Blount v. . Blount) 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
Blount v. . Blount, 73 S.E. 996, 158 N.C. 312, 1912 N.C. LEXIS 37 (N.C. 1912).

Opinion

BeowN, J.

"We are unable to pass upon the question so earnestly pressed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The *313 appeal of the plaintiff is fragmentary and premature, and the motion of the defendant to dismiss the appeal for that reason must be granted.

In the first place, the plaintiff voluntarily submitted to a non-suit, and thus put himself out of court. It is not a case of involuntary nonsuit submitted to for the purpose of testing the correctness of a ruling which is vital to the plaintiff’s cause. The refusal of the trial judge to grant a judgment upon the pleadings and order a reference did not affect a substantial right of the plaintiff, or terminate his case.

Instead of voluntarily going out of court, he should have noted his exception and proceeded with the trial of the cause, and if judgment was finally rendered against the plaintiff, he could then have reviewed the ruling o’f the judge. Hayes v. R. R., 140 N. C., 131; Midgett v. Manufacturing Co., 140 N. C., 362. In this last case it is stated that an intimation of an opinion by the judge adverse to the plaintiff upon some proposition of law which does not take the case from the jury, and which leaves open essential matters of fact still to be determined, will not justify the plaintiff in suffering a nonsuit and appeal. Such nonsuits are premature, and the appeals will be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Related

Kelly v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
86 F.2d 296 (Fourth Circuit, 1936)
McKinney Ex Rel. McKinney v. Patterson
93 S.E. 967 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 S.E. 996, 158 N.C. 312, 1912 N.C. LEXIS 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blount-v-blount-nc-1912.