Thomas v. County of Carteret

104 S.E. 75, 180 N.C. 109, 1920 N.C. LEXIS 42

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: September 29, 1920
• Status: Published

Opinion

BbowN, J.

We are of opinion, tbat tbis appeal is premature, and under tbe rules of tbe Court it must be dismissed ex mero motu. It is well settled by numerous decisions that tbis Court will not entertain premature or fragmentary appeals. Cameron v. Bennett, 110 N. C., 77; Milling Co. v. Finley, 110 N. C., 412. In tbe last ease it was held tbat an appeal only lies from a judgment. Taylor v. Bostic, 93 N. C., 415. No judgment of any"kind appears in tbe record. ,Of course there are cases in which an appeal will lie from a refusal to sign judgment upon issues tbat have been found by tbe jury, but tbis is not one of them. His Honor in his discretion set aside tbe verdict on tbe fourth issue, and continued tbe case to tbe end tbat. such further issues may be tried as may be necessary to determine the rights of tbe parties. Tbe court granted leave to plaintiff and defendants to file further pleadings. There was a motion made by tbe plaintiff to set aside tbe verdict on all issues, which motion was refused, and the plaintiff excepted. It may be tbat tbe plaintiff desires to appeal from tbe rulings of tbe judge upon tbe trial of tbe issues which have not been set aside. They cannot do so until a final judgment is rendered. Tbe cause must be remanded to tbe end tbat tbe order made by bis Honor be carried out, and a final judgment rendered. Tbe costs of tbis Court will be paid by tbe appellants Mace, administrator, and tbe United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company.

Dismissed and remanded.