Coor Farm Supply Service, Inc. v. Thompson

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Coor Farm Supply Service, Inc. v. Thompson

241 S.E.2d 364, 35 N.C. App. 406, 1978 N.C. App. LEXIS 2984

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 21, 1978

DocketNo. 7711SC375

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 241 S.E.2d 364 (Coor Farm Supply Service, Inc. v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coor Farm Supply Service, Inc. v. Thompson, 241 S.E.2d 364, 35 N.C. App. 406, 1978 N.C. App. LEXIS 2984 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PARKER, Judge.

On oral argument counsel for the parties informed this Court that, pending the hearing of this appeal, trial of plaintiff’s action has taken place in the Superior Court, resulting in a money judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the male defendant. It is apparent, therefore, that the questions sought to be presented by [408]*408this appeal have become moot, plaintiff’s present remedy being to enforce collection of its judgment. An appellate court will not decide a moot question. 1 Strong’s N.C. Index 3rd, Appeal and Error § 9.

We note that the constitutional question which defendants sought to present by their cross-appeal has already been decided adversely to their contentions. Properties, Inc. v. Ko-Ko Mart, Inc., 28 N.C. App. 532, 222 S.E. 2d 267 (1976), petition for discretionary review denied, 289 N.C. 615, 223 S.E. 2d 392 (1976).

Appeal dismissed.

Judges Martin and Arnold concur.

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

PARKER, Judge.

On oral argument counsel for the parties informed this Court that, pending the hearing of this appeal, trial of plaintiff’s action has taken place in the Superior Court, resulting in a money judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the male defendant. It is apparent, therefore, that the questions sought to be presented by [408]*408this appeal have become moot, plaintiff’s present remedy being to enforce collection of its judgment. An appellate court will not decide a moot question. 1 Strong’s N.C. Index 3rd, Appeal and Error § 9.

We note that the constitutional question which defendants sought to present by their cross-appeal has already been decided adversely to their contentions. Properties, Inc. v. Ko-Ko Mart, Inc., 28 N.C. App. 532, 222 S.E. 2d 267 (1976), petition for discretionary review denied, 289 N.C. 615, 223 S.E. 2d 392 (1976).

Appeal dismissed.

Judges Martin and Arnold concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 S.E.2d 364, 35 N.C. App. 406, 1978 N.C. App. LEXIS 2984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coor-farm-supply-service-inc-v-thompson-ncctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack