In re Fitzgerald

89 S.E.2d 462, 242 N.C. 732, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 677
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided October 12, 1955·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It is apparent that the appeal is premature. The question of the custody of the child has not been considered or determined. The order is interlocutory and no substantial right of the appellant has been affected. G.S. 1-271. DeBruhl v. Highway Com., 241 N.C. 616, 86 S.E. 2d 200.

Appeal dismissed.

WiNBORXE and HiggiNS, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

The foregoing opinion was prepared by DeviN, Emergency Justice, while he was serving in place of Winborne, J., who was absent on account of his physical condition. It is now adopted by the Court and ordered filed.

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

In re Fitzgerald, 89 S.E.2d 462, 242 N.C. 732, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 677 (N.C. 1955).

89 S.E.2d 462 (In re Fitzgerald) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fleishel v. Jessup
94 S.E.2d 308 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)