Carroll v. . Barden

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Carroll v. . Barden

1 S.E. 849, 97 N.C. 191

DecidedFebruary 5, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 1 S.E. 849 (Carroll v. . Barden) 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

Carroll v. . Barden, 1 S.E. 849, 97 N.C. 191 (N.C. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

MERRIMOS, J.

We have carefully examined the record of this appeal, and fail to find either in it, or the case settled upon appeal, any exception as assignment of error. There is nothing appearing, that in terms or by the remotest implication indicates the slightest dissatisfaction with the judgment appealed from, except simply that the appeal was-taken to this Court. It is settled by a multitude of decisions, that in such case the judgment must be affirmed.

The presumption is that the judgment is not erroneous. The party who alleges the contrary must show it, not by oral suggestion on the argument, but he must assign it in the record in such reasonable way as that this Court can see it. This is essential. The statute prescribes how this shall be done. Philips v. Pierce, 94 N. C., 514; Lytle v. Lytle, Ibid., 522; Pleasants v. Railroad, 95 N. C., 195. See also Clark’s Code, p., where many earlier cases are collected. Judgment affirmed.

No error. Affirmed.

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

MERRIMOS, J.

We have carefully examined the record of this appeal, and fail to find either in it, or the case settled upon appeal, any exception as assignment of error. There is nothing appearing, that in terms or by the remotest implication indicates the slightest dissatisfaction with the judgment appealed from, except simply that the appeal was-taken to this Court. It is settled by a multitude of decisions, that in such case the judgment must be affirmed.

The presumption is that the judgment is not erroneous. The party who alleges the contrary must show it, not by oral suggestion on the argument, but he must assign it in the record in such reasonable way as that this Court can see it. This is essential. The statute prescribes how this shall be done. Philips v. Pierce, 94 N. C., 514; Lytle v. Lytle, Ibid., 522; Pleasants v. Railroad, 95 N. C., 195. See also Clark’s Code, p., where many earlier cases are collected. Judgment affirmed.

No error. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 S.E. 849, 97 N.C. 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroll-v-barden-nc-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack