Cochran v. . Rowe

36 S.E.2d 75, 225 N.C. 645, 1945 N.C. LEXIS 389
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided November 28, 1945·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs move in this Court to dismiss the defendant’s appeal on the ground that the subject matter of the litigation has been disposed of and that nothing remains but a moot question and an adjudication of the costs.

It appears that this was a summary ejectment proceeding under G. S., 42-26, et seq., and that judgment was rendered below, based upon the verdict of the jury, decreeing that the plaintiffs were entitled to the *646 immediate possession of tbe described premises. No question of damages or arrears of rent was presented.

It is admitted that since the judgment below was' entered the defendant has surrendered possession of the premises to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are now in complete possession thereof.

As a general rule this Court will not hear an appeal when the subject matter of the litigation has been settled between the parties or has ceased to exist, and the only matter to be decided is the disposition of the costs. While there are well recognized exceptions to this rule, they have no application here. VanDyke v. Ins. Co., 174 N. C., 78, 93 S. E., 444; Herring v. Pugh, 125 N. C., 437, 34 S. E., 538; Elliott v. Tyson, 117 N. C., 114, 23 S. E., 102; Elliott v. Tyson, 116 N. C., 184, 21 S. E., 106; Russell v. Campbell, 112 N. C., 404, 17 S. E., 149; McIntosh, Practice & Procedure, 775. Here the subject of the litigation — the right of plaintiffs to the immediate possession of the premises — has been disposed of by the surrender of the premises by the defendant to the plaintiffs. No other question was raised in the trial below, and the judgment appealed from merely awarded possession to the plaintiffs.

We think the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the appeal should be allowed, and it is so ordered.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Cochran v. . Rowe, 36 S.E.2d 75, 225 N.C. 645, 1945 N.C. LEXIS 389 (N.C. 1945).

36 S.E.2d 75 (Cochran v. . Rowe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Daw
Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2024
Steen v. Colombo
799 S.W.2d 169 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1990)
State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.
221 S.E.2d 322 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1976)
Benvenue Parent-Teacher Ass'n v. Nash County Board of Education
170 S.E.2d 473 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1969)
Kendrick v. Cain
159 S.E.2d 33 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1968)
In re the Estate of Thomas
92 S.E.2d 201 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
Holmes v. Floyd E. Davis Co.
66 A.2d 212 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1949)
Swink v. . Horn
40 S.E.2d 352 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1946)