Goforth v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Goforth v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

301 S.E.2d 428, 61 N.C. App. 617, 1983 N.C. App. LEXIS 2707

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedApril 5, 1983

DocketNo. 8224DC436

StatusPublished

This text of 301 S.E.2d 428 (Goforth v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.) 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

Goforth v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 301 S.E.2d 428, 61 N.C. App. 617, 1983 N.C. App. LEXIS 2707 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

VAUGHN, Chief Judge.

Summary judgment on the issue of liability, reserving for trial the issue of damages, is not immediately appealable. Tridyn Industries v. American Mutual Insurance Co., 296 N.C. 486, 251 S.E. 2d 443 (1979).

In Tridyn, the Court quoted with approval from Veazey v. City of Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 361-62, 57 S.E. 2d 377, 381 (1950):

“A final judgment is one which disposes of the cause as to all the parties, leaving nothing to be judicially determined between them in the trial court. . . . An interlocutory order is one made during the pendency of an action, which does not dispose of the case, but leaves it for further action by the trial court in order to settle and determine the entire controversy.”

Tridyn Industries v. American Mutual Insurance Co., 296 N.C. at 488, 251 S.E. 2d at 445.

“These rules are designed to prevent fragmentary and premature appeals that unnecessarily delay the administration of justice and to ensure that the trial divisions fully and finally dispose of the case before an appeal can be heard.” Bailey v. Gooding, 301 N.C. 205, 209, 270 S.E. 2d 431, 434 (1980). “There is no more effective way to procrastinate the administration of justice than that of bringing cases to an appellate court piecemeal through the medium of successive appeals from intermediate orders.” Veazey v. City of Durham, 231 N.C. at 363, 57 S.E. 2d at 382.

Plaintiffs’ election to label a second cause of action as one for a declaratory judgment does not alter the result we are compelled to reach. Defendant’s liability on the policy was the same issue the court had to resolve in the first cause of action.

For the reasons stated, we are required to dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Judges WEBB and Eagles concur.

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

VAUGHN, Chief Judge.

Summary judgment on the issue of liability, reserving for trial the issue of damages, is not immediately appealable. Tridyn Industries v. American Mutual Insurance Co., 296 N.C. 486, 251 S.E. 2d 443 (1979).

In Tridyn, the Court quoted with approval from Veazey v. City of Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 361-62, 57 S.E. 2d 377, 381 (1950):

“A final judgment is one which disposes of the cause as to all the parties, leaving nothing to be judicially determined between them in the trial court. . . . An interlocutory order is one made during the pendency of an action, which does not dispose of the case, but leaves it for further action by the trial court in order to settle and determine the entire controversy.”

Tridyn Industries v. American Mutual Insurance Co., 296 N.C. at 488, 251 S.E. 2d at 445.

“These rules are designed to prevent fragmentary and premature appeals that unnecessarily delay the administration of justice and to ensure that the trial divisions fully and finally dispose of the case before an appeal can be heard.” Bailey v. Gooding, 301 N.C. 205, 209, 270 S.E. 2d 431, 434 (1980). “There is no more effective way to procrastinate the administration of justice than that of bringing cases to an appellate court piecemeal through the medium of successive appeals from intermediate orders.” Veazey v. City of Durham, 231 N.C. at 363, 57 S.E. 2d at 382.

Plaintiffs’ election to label a second cause of action as one for a declaratory judgment does not alter the result we are compelled to reach. Defendant’s liability on the policy was the same issue the court had to resolve in the first cause of action.

For the reasons stated, we are required to dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Judges WEBB and Eagles concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 S.E.2d 428, 61 N.C. App. 617, 1983 N.C. App. LEXIS 2707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goforth-v-hartford-accident-indemnity-co-ncctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack