Knuckles v. Spaugh

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Knuckles v. Spaugh

215 S.E.2d 825, 26 N.C. App. 340, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2045

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJune 18, 1975

Docket7521DC246 and 7521DC247

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 215 S.E.2d 825 (Knuckles v. Spaugh) 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

Knuckles v. Spaugh, 215 S.E.2d 825, 26 N.C. App. 340, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2045 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

VAUGHN, Judge.

Plaintiffs’ appeal presents essentially the same questions raised in Thompson v. Shoemaker, 7 N.C. App. 687, 173 S.E. 2d 627 (1970). Plaintiffs concede that in Thompson this court followed the applicable decisions of the North Carolina Supreme Court but urge that this court ignored the “spirit of the times.” This court will, of course, continue to adhere to the opinions of the Supreme Court according to our best knowledge and understanding of the meaning of cases decided by that court. Moreover, the lawmaking body of this State, the legislative branch, has just recently declined to enact legislation which would have brought about many of the changes in the law that plaintiffs urge this court to make by judicial decision. See H.B. 598, “Landlord and Tenant Act,” N. C. General Assembly (1975) (Committee Substitute tabled 4 June 1975 in the House of Representatives.) On plaintiffs’ appeal, the judgment is affirmed.

On defendants’ appeal, the only question is whether the judge erred in allowing plaintiffs to appeal as paupers. We hold that he did not.

*341 The judgments are affirmed.

Affirmed.

Judges Britt and Parker concur.

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

VAUGHN, Judge.

Plaintiffs’ appeal presents essentially the same questions raised in Thompson v. Shoemaker, 7 N.C. App. 687, 173 S.E. 2d 627 (1970). Plaintiffs concede that in Thompson this court followed the applicable decisions of the North Carolina Supreme Court but urge that this court ignored the “spirit of the times.” This court will, of course, continue to adhere to the opinions of the Supreme Court according to our best knowledge and understanding of the meaning of cases decided by that court. Moreover, the lawmaking body of this State, the legislative branch, has just recently declined to enact legislation which would have brought about many of the changes in the law that plaintiffs urge this court to make by judicial decision. See H.B. 598, “Landlord and Tenant Act,” N. C. General Assembly (1975) (Committee Substitute tabled 4 June 1975 in the House of Representatives.) On plaintiffs’ appeal, the judgment is affirmed.

On defendants’ appeal, the only question is whether the judge erred in allowing plaintiffs to appeal as paupers. We hold that he did not.

*341 The judgments are affirmed.

Affirmed.

Judges Britt and Parker concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 S.E.2d 825, 26 N.C. App. 340, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knuckles-v-spaugh-ncctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack