McNeill v. Raleigh & Augusta Air Line Railroad

23 S.E. 268, 117 N.C. 642
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 5, 1895
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 23 S.E. 268 (McNeill v. Raleigh & Augusta Air Line Railroad) 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
McNeill v. Raleigh & Augusta Air Line Railroad, 23 S.E. 268, 117 N.C. 642 (N.C. 1895).

Opinion

Clark J.:

Notice of appeal was properly given and in apt time, hence a motion to dismiss the appeal would not lie and in fact was not made. The appellant’s case on appeal, unless service was accepted, could only be served by an officer. Forte v. Boone, 114 N. C., 176; Allen v. Strickland, 100 N. C., 225; State v. Johnson, 109 N. C., 852; State v. Price, 110 N. C., 599. The failure of service in due time, if it is made to appear, could not be cured even by the Judge’s settling tbe case (Forte v. Boone, supra) and when the case is not settled by the Judge, it must appear affirmatively that the case or counter-case was legally served and in due time to avail the party relying upon it. M'f'g Co. v. Simmons, 97 N. C., 89; Peebles v. Braswell, 107 N. C., 68; Howell v. Jones, 109 N. C., 102. Tbe attempted service by the clerk was a nullity (Cummings v. Hoffman, 113 N. C., 267) as was also the service by a proper officer after the time limited hy law. Rosenthal v. Roberson, 114 N. C., 594; Cummings v. Hoffman, supra. Had there been counter-affidavits that in fact there had been service by a proper officer in due time, the case might be continued that, on motion below, the Judge should find and certify the facts, as in Walker v. Scott, 102 N. C., 487. Such is not the case here, but simply an attempted service within the proper time-by *644 one not authorized to make it, and then service by a proper officer but after the time limited for service had expired. Both these acts being null and of no effect, and there being nothing to excuse the laches, as in Watkins v. Railroad 116, N. C., 961, there is nothing before us except the record proper. On inspection we find no error therein and must affirm the judgment. Lyman v. Ramseur, 113 N. C., 503.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Thurston v. Salisbury Zoning Board of Adjustment
210 S.E.2d 275 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1974)
In Re the Appeal of Harris
159 S.E.2d 539 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1968)
State v. Daniels
56 S.E.2d 2 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949)
Pike v. . Seymour
24 S.E.2d 263 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)
State v. . Parnell
199 S.E. 601 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Edwards v. . Perry
179 S.E. 892 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
Smith v. . Smith
154 S.E. 737 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)
Roberts v. Greensboro-Fayetteville Bus Co.
153 S.E. 398 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)
State v. . Humphrey
120 S.E. 85 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)
Barber v. Justice.
50 S.E. 445 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1905)
State v. . Hill
36 S.E. 326 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1900)
Cowan v. Lumber Co.
126 N.C. 1153 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1900)
Hicks v. . Westbrook
28 S.E. 188 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
Barrus v. Wilmington & Weldon Railroad
28 S.E. 187 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 S.E. 268, 117 N.C. 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcneill-v-raleigh-augusta-air-line-railroad-nc-1895.