Neal v. Old North State Land Co.
17 S.E. 538, 112 N.C. 841
Opinion
The additional explanatory affidavit of the Clerk does not alter the case. The motion to re-instate must he denied. The neglect of counsel to have the record printed is the neglect of the party himself and does not excuse. Edwards v. Henderson, 109 N. C., 83, and numerous cases there cited. In that case it is said: “Appellants might as well fail to send up the transcript as not to have it in a condition to be heard by failing to have the 'case and exceptions’ printed.”
Motion Denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Neal v. Old North State Land Co., 17 S.E. 538, 112 N.C. 841 (N.C. 1893).
17 S.E. 538 (Neal v. Old North State Land Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Seawell v. Parsons Lumber Co.
90 S.E. 241 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1916)
Holland v. Railroad
137 N.C. 368 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1904)
Holland v. . R. R.
49 S.E. 359 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1904)
Calvert v. Carstarphen.
45 S.E. 353 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1903)