Blount v. . Blount

73 S.E. 996, 158 N.C. 312, 1912 N.C. LEXIS 37
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided March 6, 1912·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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

73 S.E. 996 (Blount v. . Blount) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)