Rivenbark v. Southmark Corp.

334 S.E.2d 451, 77 N.C. App. 225, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 4042
Court of Appeals of North Carolina·Decided October 1, 1985·No. 8418SC1338·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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

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).

334 S.E.2d 451 (Rivenbark v. Southmark Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Scottish Re Life Corp. v. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance
647 S.E.2d 102 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2007)
Stancil v. Stancil
381 S.E.2d 720 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1989)
Rivenbark v. Southmark Corp.
378 S.E.2d 196 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1989)