Teal v. . Liles

111 S.E. 617, 183 N.C. 678, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 340
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided April 26, 1922·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The court having sustained a demurrer to the counterclaim, the defendant appealed, and asks this Court to reverse the judgment sustaining the demurrer on the counterclaim, and that a jury trial may then be had on the counterclaim. There was no verdict or judgment upon the plaintiffs’ cause of action, and no judgment as to the costs. This Court has uniformly adhered to its ruling that it will not entertain a fragmentary appeal.

The whole subject was recently fully discussed with the fullest citation of authorities, and upon the reason of the thing, at last term, in Cement Co. v. Phillips, 182 N. C., 439, citing very numerous authorities.

That decision was cited with approval at last term by Adams, J., in Farr v. Lumber Co., 182 N. C., 727; and also in Leroy v. Saliba, ibid., 757.

The rules of practice are well settled, and well known to the profession, and are based upon the soundest reasons in the dispatch of the public business by the courts, and a slight attention to them would avoid such inadvertences as in this instance.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Teal v. . Liles, 111 S.E. 617, 183 N.C. 678, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 340 (N.C. 1922).

111 S.E. 617 (Teal v. . Liles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Roane v. . McCoy
109 S.E. 842 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1921)