State v. . Barksdale

111 S.E. 711, 183 N.C. 785, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 369
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedApril 26, 1922
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 111 S.E. 711 (State v. . Barksdale) 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
State v. . Barksdale, 111 S.E. 711, 183 N.C. 785, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 369 (N.C. 1922).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Though tbe defendant was convicted and appealed at July Term, 1921, of Richmond, tbe record was not docketed here, nor was any certiorari applied for, upon a filing of tbe transcript of tbe record proper on appeal at tbe fall term of this Court. Indeed, - tbe appeal was not docketed here until 11 April, 1922. Tbe motion of tbe Attorney-General to dismiss must be allowed. This has been tbe uniform practice" of tbe Court, as was held in S. v. Johnson, ante, 730, where tbe matter is fully discussed with full citation of authorities.

*786 Indeed, this has been the uniform practice in accordance with the rules of the Court in both civil and criminal cases. Among the more recent cases are Howard v. Speight, 180 N. C., 654, citing numerous precedents. At last term the same ruling was reaffirmed in Buggy Co. v. McLamb, 182 N. C., 762; Kerr v. Drake, ibid., 765; Tripp v. Somersett, ibid., 768, and S. v. Satterwhite, ibid., 892, in which last case the rule was again reaffirmed with full citation of authorities.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Related

State v. Walker
97 S.E.2d 219 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
Pruitt v. . Wood
156 S.E. 126 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
111 S.E. 711, 183 N.C. 785, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-barksdale-nc-1922.