Cecil v. . Lumber Company

147 S.E. 735, 197 N.C. 81, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 152
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedApril 17, 1929
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 147 S.E. 735 (Cecil v. . Lumber Company) 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
Cecil v. . Lumber Company, 147 S.E. 735, 197 N.C. 81, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 152 (N.C. 1929).

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

Tbe municipal court of tbe city of High Point was created as a “special court for tbe trial of petit misdemeanors” by chapter '569, Public-Local Laws 1913. It was given civil jurisdiction in certain cases by chapter 699, Public-Local Laws 1927, with tbe right of either tbe plaintiff or tbe defendant in civil actions or tbe defendant in any criminal action and tbe State in certain criminal prosecutions to appeal to tbe Superior Court of Guilford County in term time “for errors assigned in matters of law in tbe same manner and under tbe same requirements as are now provided by law for appeals from tbe Superior Court to tbe Supreme Court,” etc. This means that in bearing cases on appeal from tbe municipal court of tbe city of High Point, tbe Superior Court of Guilford County sits as an appellate court, subject to review by tbe Supreme Court.

The assignments of error, appearing on tbe present record, are not sufficiently definite to enable tbe court to understand what questions are sought to be presented, without a voyage of discovery through tbe record. Sturtevant v. Cotton Mills, 171 N. C., 119, 87 S. E., 992. Hence, tbe motion of plaintiffs to dismiss tbe appeal and to affirm tbe judgment for failure to comply with Rule 19, sec. 3, would seem to be well founded. Porter v. Lumber Co., 164 N. C., 396, 80 S. E., 443.

We have examined tbe record, however, and find no reversible error. Thresher Co. v. Thomas, 170 N. C., 680, 87 S. E., 327.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Related

In re Drainage of Ahoskie Creek
125 S.E.2d 908 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1962)
Phillips v. NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY
125 S.E.2d 603 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1962)
Nichols v. McFarland
105 S.E.2d 294 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1958)
Bridges v. Graham
98 S.E.2d 492 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
State v. Worley
97 S.E.2d 837 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
Armstrong v. Howard
94 S.E.2d 594 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
Tillis v. Calvine Cotton Mills, Inc.
94 S.E.2d 600 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
Barnette v. Woody
88 S.E.2d 223 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)
Steelman v. . Benfield
46 S.E.2d 829 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
State v. . Jones
42 S.E.2d 465 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1947)
State v. . Dilliard
27 S.E.2d 85 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)
Jenkins v. . Castelloe
181 S.E. 266 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
Poindexter v. . Call
179 S.E. 335 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
State v. . Bittings
175 S.E. 299 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Lewellyn v. . Lewellyn
166 S.E. 737 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
State v. . Lea
164 S.E. 737 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
State v. Davis
203 N.C. 13 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
Baker v. . Clayton
164 S.E. 233 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
In Re Will of Beard
163 S.E. 748 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
Hendrix v. . R. R.
163 S.E. 752 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
147 S.E. 735, 197 N.C. 81, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cecil-v-lumber-company-nc-1929.