Perry v. . Adams

2 S.E. 659, 96 N.C. 347
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 5, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 2 S.E. 659 (Perry v. . Adams) 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
Perry v. . Adams, 2 S.E. 659, 96 N.C. 347 (N.C. 1887).

Opinion

Merrimon, J.

In this case both the plaintiff and defendants appealed to this Court. The appeals are distinct— one is no part of, nor is it dependent upon the other in any respect, and the long settled rule of practice in such cases'has been, that each appeal must come to this Court in fact— as it does in contemplation of law — separately, and separate-transcripts of the record must be filed in this Court. The records of two such appeals are not wholly the same, nor is-so much of the record as is peculiar to one, necessary to, or properly a part of that of the other. Devereux v. Burgwyn, 11 Ired., 490; Morrison v. Cornelius, 63 N. C., 346.

*348 The purpose of the rule is, to prevent the confusion that would ordinarily result from blending two appeals — two distinct cases — in one, as to the cause of procedure and practice, and in respect to the allowance and taxing of the costs. The rule has been found necessary and wholesome, and must be upheld in all cases. It concerns the Court as well ■as litigants, and cannot be waived by consent of counsel.

In such cases, the clerk of the Superior Court must send up each appeal by itself, and hence, two distinct transcripts of so much of the record as applies to each.

In this case there is but one transcript. Whose is it? Is it that of the plaintiff or defendant? We decline to attempt to decide the questions intended to be presented for our decision, until the appeals shall be separated and each assigned its proper place on the docket, and to this end there must he a transcript for each.

Let the case be continued for this purpose. It is so ordered.

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

Related

Pope v. Righter-Parry Lumber Co.
78 S.E. 65 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1913)
Caudle v. . Morris
74 S.E. 98 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1912)
Mills v. Guaranty Co.
48 S.E. 652 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1904)
Ferrell v. Broadway.
37 S.E. 504 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1900)
State v. . Bost
34 S.E. 650 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1899)
Ferrabow v. . Green
14 S.E. 973 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1892)
Bank of Oxford v. Bobbitt
13 S.E. 177 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1891)
Jones v. . Hoggard
12 S.E. 286 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 S.E. 659, 96 N.C. 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perry-v-adams-nc-1887.