Hicks v. . Royal

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Hicks v. . Royal

29 S.E. 413, 122 N.C. 405, 1898 N.C. LEXIS 271

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 24, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 S.E. 413 (Hicks v. . Royal) 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

Hicks v. . Royal, 29 S.E. 413, 122 N.C. 405, 1898 N.C. LEXIS 271 (N.C. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

An exhibit which is made a part of the pleadings and is material to understanding the plea of *406 < ‘another action pending for the same' cause” is not printed. Even under the former rule, the motion to dismiss would have been allowed. Fleming v. McPhail, 121 N. C., 183; Barnes v. Crawford, 119 N. C., 127. Much the more so is this true under the present Rule 28, (121 N. C., 695) which, to avoid just such disputes as to the materiality of omitted parts, requires the entire transcript on appeal to be printed.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Per Curiam:

An exhibit which is made a part of the pleadings and is material to understanding the plea of *406 < ‘another action pending for the same' cause” is not printed. Even under the former rule, the motion to dismiss would have been allowed. Fleming v. McPhail, 121 N. C., 183; Barnes v. Crawford, 119 N. C., 127. Much the more so is this true under the present Rule 28, (121 N. C., 695) which, to avoid just such disputes as to the materiality of omitted parts, requires the entire transcript on appeal to be printed.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 S.E. 413, 122 N.C. 405, 1898 N.C. LEXIS 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicks-v-royal-nc-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack