In re the Bank of Whiteville

202 N.C. 251
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 17, 1932·Published

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The granting or refusing a continuance, which involves no question of law or legal inference, is not subject to review on appeal. C. S., 560; Dupree v. Insurance Co., 92 N. C., 418. Hence, following the course pursued in Goodman v. Goodman, 201 N. C., 808, 161 S. E., 686, and Bird v. Bradburn, 131 N. C., 488, 42 S. E., 936, the appeal will be dismissed.

Furthermore, as the record contains no statement of case on appeal, we are limited to a consideration of the judgment, the appeal itself being regarded as an exception thereto. Casualty Co. v. Green, 200 N. C., 535, 157 S. E., 797. No reason appears on the face of the record proper for disturbing the judgment.

Appeal dismissed.

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

In re the Bank of Whiteville, 202 N.C. 251 (N.C. 1932).

202 N.C. 251 (In re the Bank of Whiteville) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Goodman v. . Goodman
161 S.E. 686 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)
Bird v. Bradburn.
42 S.E. 936 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1902)
Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Green
157 S.E. 797 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)