Lytle v. . Lytle
This text of 90 N.C. 647 (Lytle v. . Lytle) 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.
Opinion
The appellee moved to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the undertaking upon appeal had not been justified as required by the statute.
It does not appear in the record, or otherwise, that the undertaking, or a deposit of money with the clerk, ordered by the court, was 'waived by a “written consent on the part of the respondent,”*the plaintiff. An affidavit of the surety accompanies the undertaking upon appeal, but it is fatally defective, in that it does not state that'the affiant “is worth double the amount specified therein.” The statute is peremptory in requiring this fact to be stated. Harshaw v. McDowell, 89 N. C., 181; Morphew v. Tatem, Ib., 183; Hemphill v. Blackwelder, decided at this term, ante, 14.
It is manifest that the appellee is entitled to have his motion allowed. It is so ordered.
Appeal dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
90 N.C. 647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lytle-v-lytle-nc-1884.