Smith v. . Smith

154 S.E. 737, 199 N.C. 463, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 149
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 24, 1930
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 154 S.E. 737 (Smith v. . Smith) 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
Smith v. . Smith, 154 S.E. 737, 199 N.C. 463, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 149 (N.C. 1930).

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

Where there is a controversy as to whether the case on appeal was served within the time fixed or allowed, or service within such time waived, it is the duty of the trial court to find the facts, hear motions and enter appropriate orders thereon. Holloman v. Holloman, 172 N. C., 835, 90 S. E., 10; Barrus v. R. R., 121 N. C., 504, 28 S. E., 187; Walker v. Scott, 102 N. C., 487, 9 S. E., 488; Cummings v. Hoffman, 113 N. C., 267, 18 S. E., 170.

*465 It appears, without contradiction, that appellant’s statement of case on appeal was not served within the time allowed by agreement of counsel, hence the judge was without authority to settle the case. Lindsey v. Knights of Honor, 112 N. C., 818, 90 S. E., 1013; Cozart v. Assurance Co., 142 N. C., 522, 55 S. E., 411; Barber v. Justice, 138 N. C., 20, 50 S. E., 445. And his attempted settlement of the case, without finding that service within the stipulated time had been waived, did not cure the defect. McNeill v. R. R., 117 N. C., 642, 23 S. E., 268; Forte v. Boone, 114 N. C., 176, 19 S. E., 632.

The “case,” therefore, as settled, must be disregarded. Cummings v. Hoffman, supra.

Application for certiorari was made at the Spring Term of this Court and allowed, but this did not change the time already fixed by agreement of the parties, for serving statement of case on appeal, and exceptions or countercase.

There being no case on appeal, legally settled, does not, however, entitle the appellee to have the appeal dismissed. Roberts v. Bus Co., 198 N. C., 779; Wallace v. Salisbury, 147 N. C., 58, 60 S. E., 713. But as no error appears on the face of the record proper, the judgment must he affirmed. Delafield v. Construction Co., 115 N. C., 21, 20 S. E., 167.

Affirmed.

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

Related

American Floor MacHine Co. v. Dixon
133 S.E.2d 659 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1963)
Hoke v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp.
42 S.E.2d 407 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1947)
Bell v. . Nivens
33 S.E.2d 66 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1945)
Pike v. . Seymour
21 S.E.2d 884 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)
State v. . Moore
188 S.E. 421 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
Edwards v. . Perry
179 S.E. 892 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
State v. . Hooker
178 S.E. 75 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
State v. . Upchurch
176 S.E. 884 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
State v. . Ray
175 S.E. 109 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Weaver v. . Hampton
175 S.E. 110 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
154 S.E. 737, 199 N.C. 463, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-smith-nc-1930.