State v. Ravensford Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Ravensford Lumber Co.

175 S.E. 713, 207 N.C. 47, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 377

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 19, 1934

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 175 S.E. 713 (State v. Ravensford Lumber Co.) 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. Ravensford Lumber Co., 175 S.E. 713, 207 N.C. 47, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 377 (N.C. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Staoy, C. J.

It may well be doubted whether any valid exceptive assignment of error has been made to appear, but as the pleadings on which the case was tried have been omitted from the record, the appeal must be dismissed in accordance with the uniform practice in such cases. Payne v. Brown, 205 N. C., 785, 172 S. E., 348; Parles v. Seagraves, *48 203 N. C., 647, 166 S. E., 747; Armstrong v. Service Stores, 203 N. C., 231, 165 S. E., 680; Everett v. Fair Association, 202 N. C., 838, 162 S. E., 896; Pruitt v. Wood, 199 N. C., 788, 156 S. E., 126. Failure to send up necessary parts of tbe record proper has uniformly resulted in dismissal of the appeal. Riggan v. Harrison, 203 N. C., 191, 165 S. E., 358; Waters v. Waters, 199 N. C., 667, 155 S. E., 564.

It is provided by Rule 19, sec. 1, of the Rules of Practice, that “the pleadings on which the case is tried, the issues, and the judgment appealed from shall be a part of the transcript in all cases.” The pleadings are essential in order that we may be advised as to the nature of the action or proceeding. Waters v. Waters, supra. We can judicially know only what properly appears on the record. Chesson v. Bank, 190 N. C., 187, 129 S. E., 403; S. v. Wheeler, 185 N. C., 670, 116 S. E., 413; Walton v. McKesson, 101 N. C., 428, 7 S. E., 566.

Appeal dismissed.

SciieNCk, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Staoy, C. J.

It may well be doubted whether any valid exceptive assignment of error has been made to appear, but as the pleadings on which the case was tried have been omitted from the record, the appeal must be dismissed in accordance with the uniform practice in such cases. Payne v. Brown, 205 N. C., 785, 172 S. E., 348; Parles v. Seagraves, *48 203 N. C., 647, 166 S. E., 747; Armstrong v. Service Stores, 203 N. C., 231, 165 S. E., 680; Everett v. Fair Association, 202 N. C., 838, 162 S. E., 896; Pruitt v. Wood, 199 N. C., 788, 156 S. E., 126. Failure to send up necessary parts of tbe record proper has uniformly resulted in dismissal of the appeal. Riggan v. Harrison, 203 N. C., 191, 165 S. E., 358; Waters v. Waters, 199 N. C., 667, 155 S. E., 564.

It is provided by Rule 19, sec. 1, of the Rules of Practice, that “the pleadings on which the case is tried, the issues, and the judgment appealed from shall be a part of the transcript in all cases.” The pleadings are essential in order that we may be advised as to the nature of the action or proceeding. Waters v. Waters, supra. We can judicially know only what properly appears on the record. Chesson v. Bank, 190 N. C., 187, 129 S. E., 403; S. v. Wheeler, 185 N. C., 670, 116 S. E., 413; Walton v. McKesson, 101 N. C., 428, 7 S. E., 566.

Appeal dismissed.

SciieNCk, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 S.E. 713, 207 N.C. 47, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ravensford-lumber-co-nc-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack