Parrish v. . Hartman

193 S.E. 18, 212 N.C. 248, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 286
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided October 13, 1937·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The order striking out defendants’ purported statement of case on appeal, because not served in time, is supported by a long line of decisions, of which S. v. Moore, 210 N. C., 686, 188 S. E., 421, may be cited as the most recent. The failure to have a “case on appeal,” however, does not ipso facto work a dismissal. Roberts v. Bus Co., 198 N. C., 779, 153 S. E., 398. Non constat that error may not appear on the face o'f the record proper. Edwards v. Perry, 208 N. C., 252, 179 S. E., 892; Wallace v. Salisbury, 147 N. C., 58, 60 S. E., 713.

Here; error does appear on the face of the record proper. The judgment is in excess of the verdict in its award of interest on the recovery. This will be modified so as to conform with the verdict as it appears of record in the Superior Court of Yancey County.

Modified and affirmed.

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

Parrish v. . Hartman, 193 S.E. 18, 212 N.C. 248, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 286 (N.C. 1937).

193 S.E. 18 (Parrish v. . Hartman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Respass v. Bonner
74 S.E.2d 721 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
Yancey v. North Carolina State Highway & Public Works Commission
19 S.E.2d 489 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)
State v. . Parnell
199 S.E. 601 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)