Cox v. Shaw

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Cox v. Shaw

90 S.E.2d 327, 243 N.C. 191, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 561

DecidedNovember 30, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 90 S.E.2d 327 (Cox v. Shaw) 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

Cox v. Shaw, 90 S.E.2d 327, 243 N.C. 191, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 561 (N.C. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PeR CuRiam.

When the cause came on to be heard on exceptions filed, the court had authority to affirm, amend, modify, set aside, confirm in whole or in part, or disaffirm the report of the referee. Quevedo v. Deans, 234 N.C. 618, 68 S.E. 2d 275; Keith v. Silvia, 233 N.C. 328, 64 S.E. 2d 178; G.S. 1-194, 195. The order vacating the report of the referee and ordering a new survey was purely interlocutory. It affected no substantial right of the parties. G.S. 1-277. Appeal therefrom was fragmentary and premature. Whitehurst v. Hinton, 222 N.C. 85, 21 S.E. 2d 874.

We may note that the motion for a new survey made before the court below is quite different from the motion made before exceptions were filed. At the time Carr, J., signed his order, the reference was not before him for consideration. Keith v. Silvia, supra.

Appeal dismissed.

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

PeR CuRiam.

When the cause came on to be heard on exceptions filed, the court had authority to affirm, amend, modify, set aside, confirm in whole or in part, or disaffirm the report of the referee. Quevedo v. Deans, 234 N.C. 618, 68 S.E. 2d 275; Keith v. Silvia, 233 N.C. 328, 64 S.E. 2d 178; G.S. 1-194, 195. The order vacating the report of the referee and ordering a new survey was purely interlocutory. It affected no substantial right of the parties. G.S. 1-277. Appeal therefrom was fragmentary and premature. Whitehurst v. Hinton, 222 N.C. 85, 21 S.E. 2d 874.

We may note that the motion for a new survey made before the court below is quite different from the motion made before exceptions were filed. At the time Carr, J., signed his order, the reference was not before him for consideration. Keith v. Silvia, supra.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 S.E.2d 327, 243 N.C. 191, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-shaw-nc-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack