Roberts v. Akins

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Roberts v. Akins

136 S.E.2d 111, 261 N.C. 735, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 583

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 29, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 136 S.E.2d 111 (Roberts v. Akins) 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

Roberts v. Akins, 136 S.E.2d 111, 261 N.C. 735, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 583 (N.C. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The only question before Judge Nimocks was whether plaintiffs should be granted temporary injunctive relief “for the year 1963.” It was decided in favor of defendants. Hence, defendants were not aggrieved by Judge Nimock’s order and their purported appeal must be dismissed. G.S. 1-271; Buick Co. v. General Motors Corp., 251 N.C. 201, 205, 110 S.E. 2d 870.

With reference to defendants’ exception to the court’s expression of opinion and ruling with reference to defendants’ plea of estoppel, it [737]*737seems appropriate to say: Judge Nimocks’ decision was not based on this ruling. Moreover, any ruling by Judge Nimocks with reference to defendants’ plea of estoppel would have significance only for the purpose of resolving the question then before him. The judge presiding at the final hearing is not bound by said ruling but will decide de novo all questions with reference to defendants’ said plea. Hence, it does not appear defendants are prejudiced by the portion of Judge Nimocks’ order to which they excepted.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

The only question before Judge Nimocks was whether plaintiffs should be granted temporary injunctive relief “for the year 1963.” It was decided in favor of defendants. Hence, defendants were not aggrieved by Judge Nimock’s order and their purported appeal must be dismissed. G.S. 1-271; Buick Co. v. General Motors Corp., 251 N.C. 201, 205, 110 S.E. 2d 870.

With reference to defendants’ exception to the court’s expression of opinion and ruling with reference to defendants’ plea of estoppel, it [737]*737seems appropriate to say: Judge Nimocks’ decision was not based on this ruling. Moreover, any ruling by Judge Nimocks with reference to defendants’ plea of estoppel would have significance only for the purpose of resolving the question then before him. The judge presiding at the final hearing is not bound by said ruling but will decide de novo all questions with reference to defendants’ said plea. Hence, it does not appear defendants are prejudiced by the portion of Judge Nimocks’ order to which they excepted.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 S.E.2d 111, 261 N.C. 735, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-akins-nc-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack