Siders v. Gibbs

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Siders v. Gibbs

215 S.E.2d 813, 26 N.C. App. 333, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2042

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJune 18, 1975

DocketNo. 7514SC8

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 215 S.E.2d 813 (Siders v. Gibbs) 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

Siders v. Gibbs, 215 S.E.2d 813, 26 N.C. App. 333, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2042 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PARKER, Judge.

Since defendant Gibbs moved for summary judgment only as to plaintiff’s claim, the statement in the judgment allowing the motion that “this action as to said defendant is dismissed” can reasonably refer solely to plaintiff’s claim. Young’s cross-actions, so far as the record indicates, are still pending.

Plaintiff brought this action against two defendants, one of whom then asserted cross-claims against his codefendant. The judgment from which plaintiff now purports to appeal adjudicates “the rights and liabilities, of fewer than all the parties” and contains no determination by the trial judge that “there is no just reason for delay” within the language of Rule 54 (b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the judgment is interlocutory and not presently appealable. Leasings, Inc. v. Dan-Cleve Corp., 25 N.C. App. 18, 212 S.E. 2d 41 (1975) ; Arnold v. Howard, 24 N.C. App. 255, 210 S.E. 2d 492 (1974).

Appeal dismissed.

Judges Hedrick and Clark concur.

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

PARKER, Judge.

Since defendant Gibbs moved for summary judgment only as to plaintiff’s claim, the statement in the judgment allowing the motion that “this action as to said defendant is dismissed” can reasonably refer solely to plaintiff’s claim. Young’s cross-actions, so far as the record indicates, are still pending.

Plaintiff brought this action against two defendants, one of whom then asserted cross-claims against his codefendant. The judgment from which plaintiff now purports to appeal adjudicates “the rights and liabilities, of fewer than all the parties” and contains no determination by the trial judge that “there is no just reason for delay” within the language of Rule 54 (b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the judgment is interlocutory and not presently appealable. Leasings, Inc. v. Dan-Cleve Corp., 25 N.C. App. 18, 212 S.E. 2d 41 (1975) ; Arnold v. Howard, 24 N.C. App. 255, 210 S.E. 2d 492 (1974).

Appeal dismissed.

Judges Hedrick and Clark concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 S.E.2d 813, 26 N.C. App. 333, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siders-v-gibbs-ncctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack