Leak v. . Covington

95 N.C. 193
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedOctober 5, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 95 N.C. 193 (Leak v. . Covington) 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
Leak v. . Covington, 95 N.C. 193 (N.C. 1886).

Opinion

MerrimoN, J.

(after stating the facts). It is manifest that the order appealed from is interlocutory in its nature. It does not put an end to the action ; indeed, it is expressly stated that “ it is retained for the trial of the issues raised by the pleadings, and for further directions.” The account is incidental to other questions and matters yet to be settled in the further progress of the action.

It will not destroy or seriously impair any substantial right of the defendant involved in the order, to. postpone the correction of the errors assigned, if they are such, until after the final judgment, when the defendant may appeal and have the errors now specified in the record, and any others he may possibly complain of in the further progress of the action, corrected all by one appeal.

If appeals like this should be entertained, an indefinite number of them might be taken in the same action, thus producing delay, confusion and increased costs.

*195 Generally, appeals do not lie until after final judgment. The •cases are exceptional where they lie from interlocutory orders. Actions cannot be brought to this Court for the correction of errors piecemeal — in fragments and sections. Such a-practice would be fruitful of the evils suggested, and would greatly tend to impair the order, unity and consistency of the action, while there is practically no necessity for it.

It is only when the judgment or order appealed from in the •course of the action puts an end to it, or may put an end to it, or has the effect to deprive the party complaining of some substantial right, or will seriously impair such right if the error shall not be corrected at once, and before the final hearing, that an appeal lies before final judgment. There are many decisions to this effect. Lutz v. Cline, 89 N. C., 186; Jones v. Call, Ib., 188; Arrington v. Arrington, 91 N. C., 301; Hicks v. Bullock, 93 N. C., 112 ; Welsh v. Kinsland, Ib., 281.

The appeal must be dismissed. It is so ordered.

Dismissed.

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

Related

Ford v. Mann
690 S.E.2d 281 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2010)
Mills v. Moore
291 S.E.2d 141 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1982)
Jennewein v. CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF WILMINGTON
264 S.E.2d 802 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1980)
North Carolina Consumers Power, Inc. v. Duke Power Co.
206 S.E.2d 178 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1974)
Veazey v. City of Durham
57 S.E.2d 377 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
Belk's Department Store, Inc. v. . Guilford County
23 S.E.2d 897 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)
Cole v. Farmers Bank & Trust Co.
20 S.E.2d 54 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)
Johnson v. Pilot Life Insurance
1 S.E.2d 381 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
Smith v. City of Goldsboro
28 S.E. 479 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
Royster v. . Wright
24 S.E. 746 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1896)
Wallace Bros. v. Douglas
10 S.E. 1043 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1890)
Martin v. . Flippin
8 S.E. 345 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 N.C. 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leak-v-covington-nc-1886.