City of Goldsboro v. Holmes

111 S.E. 1, 183 N.C. 203, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 236
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided March 22, 1922·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Adams, J.

The record presents an interesting and important question, but we are precluded from giving it consideration at this time. His Honor’s order was interlocutory, not final. The trial should determine all matters at issue, so that a final judgment may be rendered. An appeal that is fragmentary will not be entertained. In addition, we have repeatedly held that no appeal lies from a refusal to dismiss an action or proceeding. Capps v. R. R., 182 N. C., 758; Farr v. Lumber Co., ibid., 725; Cement Co. v. Phillips, ibid., 438. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

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

City of Goldsboro v. Holmes, 111 S.E. 1, 183 N.C. 203, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 236 (N.C. 1922).

111 S.E. 1 (City of Goldsboro v. Holmes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

North Carolina Consumers Power, Inc. v. Duke Power Co.
206 S.E.2d 178 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1974)
Utilities Com. v. . R. R.
28 S.E.2d 490 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1944)
Belk's Department Store, Inc. v. . Guilford County
23 S.E.2d 897 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)
Johnson v. Pilot Life Insurance
1 S.E.2d 381 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
Serkowich v. Wardell
102 F.2d 253 (D.C. Circuit, 1938)
Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Whiting Manufacturing Co.
184 S.E. 48 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
State v. Suncrest Lumber Co.
154 S.E. 72 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)