Erwin v. . Erwin

14 N.C. 528
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedDecember 5, 1832
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 14 N.C. 528 (Erwin v. . Erwin) 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
Erwin v. . Erwin, 14 N.C. 528 (N.C. 1832).

Opinion

*529 Ruffin Judge.

The appeal was taken in April, 1831, and this application for a certiorari is now made —in December 1832, eighteen months, after the record ought to have been filed in this court. We do not think proper to consider whether the grounds laid for the relief asked, would have been sufficient, liad the motion been made at an earlier and proper period. For the motion comes out of due time, and must on that ground, be refused.

It is true, the party swears, that since the last term, he learned for the first time, that the transcript had miscarried. But his duty was to have enquired earlier; to attend to his cause, in person or by attorney, at the first term (unless prevented by accident;) and then to have taken the necessary steps to have the case brought up and decided.

By the course of the court, the application for this extraordinary remedy must be made as soon as the party • can, after losing the benefit of his appeal. It can no more be granted to one who is dilatory in asking for it, than it can be to one who has neglected to pray an appeal when in his power. He who fails from negligence, duly to. prosecute an appeal, is as little entitled to aid, as he who from the same cause, failed to obtain an appeal. The rule is therefore refused.

Per Curiam. — Ruxe refused.

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

Related

Howell v. . Barnes
64 N.C. 625 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1870)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 N.C. 528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erwin-v-erwin-nc-1832.