Owens v. . Paxton

11 S.E. 375, 106 N.C. 480
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 5, 1890·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Clare, J.:

To the certiorari in this case the Judge returns that the amended answer has been lost, and his notes of the trial also, and that, in consequence, he is unable to make up or settle case on appeal. The appellant moves thereupon for a new trial. The loss of the amended answer of itself would not support this motion, as it might be supplied by proper proceedings. Nichols v. Banning, 91 N. C., 4. Nor would the mere fact of the Judge’s inability to settle the case of itself be sufficient. Simmons v. Andrews, at this term. *481 But it appears in addition, in this case, that there has been no laches on the part of the appellant.

Under such circumstances a new trial must be ordered. Burton v. Green, 94 N. C., 215; Commissioners v. Steamship Co., 98 N. C., 165.

New trial.

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

Owens v. . Paxton, 11 S.E. 375, 106 N.C. 480 (N.C. 1890).

11 S.E. 375 (Owens v. . Paxton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wagner ex rel. Wagner v. Eudy
125 S.E.2d 598 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1962)
State v. . Robinson
56 S.E. 918 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1907)
State v. . Huggins
35 S.E. 606 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1900)
McGowan v. . Harris
26 S.E. 690 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
Water Supply & Storage Co. v. Tenney
21 Colo. 284 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1895)
Ritter v. . Grimm
19 S.E. 239 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1894)
Alley v. McCabe
35 N.E. 615 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1893)