McGehee v. . Tucker

29 S.E. 833, 122 N.C. 186, 1898 N.C. LEXIS 221
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided April 12, 1898·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Whether the intestate of the defendant died seized of realty is an indispensable fact to be ascertained before the application of the Statute of Limitations can be determined. The pleadings raise an issue as to that fact, but counsel by agreement reserved the ascertainment thereof and speared a hypothetical proposition of law to the Court. The Court will not entertain fragmentary or premature appeals. Clark’s Code, Section 584, and cases cited. Hinton v. Ins. Co., 116 N. C., 22. As was said by Pearson, C. J., in Hamlin v. Tucker, 12 N. C., 502, the Court will not “take two bites at a cherry.”

Appeal dismissed.

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

McGehee v. . Tucker, 29 S.E. 833, 122 N.C. 186, 1898 N.C. LEXIS 221 (N.C. 1898).

29 S.E. 833 (McGehee v. . Tucker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Seibel v. Byers
344 P.2d 129 (Montana Supreme Court, 1959)
Penn-Allen Cement Co. v. Phillips
109 S.E. 257 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1921)