Howard v. Queen City Coach Co.

190 S.E. 478, 211 N.C. 329, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 87
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMarch 17, 1937
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 190 S.E. 478 (Howard v. Queen City Coach Co.) 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
Howard v. Queen City Coach Co., 190 S.E. 478, 211 N.C. 329, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 87 (N.C. 1937).

Opinion

DeviN, J.,

after stating the case: The principal question presented by this appeal is whether the resident judge of a judicial district, when acting in that capacity alone, has jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal from an order of the clerk denying a motion to remove a cause to another county.

*331 This question seems to have been decided by this Court in Ward v. Agrillo, 194 N. C., 321. From the well considered opinion by Connor, J., in that case we quote the following: “In the absence of statutory provision to that effect, the resident judge of a judicial district has no jurisdiction to bear and determine an appeal from a judgment of the clerk of the Superior Court of any county in bis district, rendered pursuant to the provisions of 3 C. S., 593, except when such judge is holding the courts of the district by assignment under the statute, or is holding a term of court by exchange, or under a special commission from the Governor. No jurisdiction is conferred upon the resident judge by the requirement of the Constitution that every judge of the Superior Court shall reside in the district for which be is elected.”

It follows that, upon the record before us, the resident judge was without jurisdiction to make the order appealed from.

Nor may the fact tbat counsel for defendant appeared at the bearing be held to constitute a waiver. While a party may waive bis right to have a cause removed, be cannot by consent or by appearance confer jurisdiction wben there is none in law. Dees v. Apple, 207 N. C., 763; Realty Co. v. Corpening, 147 N. C., 613.

It is necessary, therefore, tbat this case be remanded to tbe Superior Court of McDowell County in order tbat the judge bolding the courts of said county may bear and determine the appeal from tbe order of tbe clerk.

Error and remanded.

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

Related

In Re McKinney
581 S.E.2d 793 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2003)
Baker v. Varser
79 S.E.2d 757 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
State Distributing Corp. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
224 N.C. 370 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1944)
Shepard v. . Leonard
25 S.E.2d 445 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)
Henderson County v. . Smyth
5 S.E.2d 136 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
Collins v. . Wooten
193 S.E. 385 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
190 S.E. 478, 211 N.C. 329, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-queen-city-coach-co-nc-1937.