State v. Ravensford Lumber Co.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
175 S.E. 713 (State v. Ravensford Lumber Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.