Rivenbark v. Southmark Corp.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Rivenbark v. Southmark Corp.

334 S.E.2d 451, 77 N.C. App. 225, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 4042

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 1, 1985

Docket8418SC1338

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 334 S.E.2d 451 (Rivenbark v. Southmark Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rivenbark v. Southmark Corp., 334 S.E.2d 451, 77 N.C. App. 225, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 4042 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PHILLIPS, Judge.

Though neither party addressed the question this appeal has no business being here and must be dismissed. It is a fragmentary appeal from an interlocutory order that leaves pending and unlitigated all of the claims of both parties; and no substantial right of plaintiff can possibly be affected to the slightest extent if the validity of the order is not determined until after a final judgment is entered in the case. See G.S. 1-277, G.S. 7A-27; G.S. 1A-1, Rule 54, N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure; Waters v. Qualified Personnel, 294 N.C. 200, 240 S.E. 2d 338 (1978); N. C. Consumers Power, Inc. v. Duke Power Co., 285 N.C. 434, 206 S.E. 2d 178, reh. denied, 286 N.C. 547, — S.E. 2d — (1974). Indeed, if plaintiff’s right to the disputed rentals is established at trial that adjustment can easily be accomplished by the final judgment and even if the judgment is for every cent that plaintiff sued for its col-lectibility is assured. Thus, not only is the appeal unauthorized by our law, it is also to no purpose.

Dismissed.

Judges BECTON and EAGLES concur.

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

PHILLIPS, Judge.

Though neither party addressed the question this appeal has no business being here and must be dismissed. It is a fragmentary appeal from an interlocutory order that leaves pending and unlitigated all of the claims of both parties; and no substantial right of plaintiff can possibly be affected to the slightest extent if the validity of the order is not determined until after a final judgment is entered in the case. See G.S. 1-277, G.S. 7A-27; G.S. 1A-1, Rule 54, N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure; Waters v. Qualified Personnel, 294 N.C. 200, 240 S.E. 2d 338 (1978); N. C. Consumers Power, Inc. v. Duke Power Co., 285 N.C. 434, 206 S.E. 2d 178, reh. denied, 286 N.C. 547, — S.E. 2d — (1974). Indeed, if plaintiff’s right to the disputed rentals is established at trial that adjustment can easily be accomplished by the final judgment and even if the judgment is for every cent that plaintiff sued for its col-lectibility is assured. Thus, not only is the appeal unauthorized by our law, it is also to no purpose.

Dismissed.

Judges BECTON and EAGLES concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

334 S.E.2d 451, 77 N.C. App. 225, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 4042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivenbark-v-southmark-corp-ncctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack