McMillan v. . McMillan

29 S.E. 361, 122 N.C. 410, 1898 N.C. LEXIS 275
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMarch 29, 1898
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 29 S.E. 361 (McMillan v. . McMillan) 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
McMillan v. . McMillan, 29 S.E. 361, 122 N.C. 410, 1898 N.C. LEXIS 275 (N.C. 1898).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The appellant dockets a certificate from the clerk stating the names of the parties to the case, and that a judgment and an appeal had been taken therein, and that the transcript of the record proper could not be sent up because the Judge had the original papers to settle the “ case on appeal,” and had not sent them back, nor any ‘ ‘ case settled. ” The appellant files his affidavit negativing laches and averring merits in his appeal. He is entitled to the certiorari asked for. Of course, if the original papers were in the clerk’s office below, he should have docketed a transcript of the record proper and have moved upon that for a certiorari for the case on appeal. Burrell v. Hughes, 120 N. C., 217; Critz v. Sparger, 121 N. C., 283. The appellant has docketed all he could get, and is in no laches.

Motion allowed.

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

Related

Slocumb v. Construction Company.
55 S.E. 196 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1906)
Norwood v. . Pratt
32 S.E. 979 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 S.E. 361, 122 N.C. 410, 1898 N.C. LEXIS 275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmillan-v-mcmillan-nc-1898.