Thompson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Thompson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co.

211 S.E.2d 526, 24 N.C. App. 577, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2438

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 5, 1975

DocketNo. 741SC864

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 211 S.E.2d 526 (Thompson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thompson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 211 S.E.2d 526, 24 N.C. App. 577, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2438 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRIS, Judge.

Defendant has failed properly to set forth his exceptions. “Such exceptions are completely ineffectual and will not be considered on appeal. Rule 21, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals. [Citations omitted.] However, in the absence of exceptions, or when exceptions have not been properly preserved in accordance with our Rules of Practice, the appeal will be taken as an exception to the judgment. Holden v. Holden, 245 [579]*579N.C. 1, 95 S.E. 2d 118 (1956).” Moore v. Strickland, 23 N.C., App. 732, 733, 209 S.E. 2d 830 (1974). Our inquiry is thus limited to the question whether error appears on the face of the record.

We find no error appearing on the face of the record. Indeed, a review of the entire record reveals no prejudicial error. We note that defendant’s brief contains statements probably intended as explanation or justification. However, nothing appears in the record which would indicate that there was a justifiable reason for counsel’s failure to appear, nor does the record contain anything which would indicate any abuse of discretion on the part of the court in refusing to reopen the case and continue it.

Affirmed.

Judges Parker and Hedrick concur.

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

MORRIS, Judge.

Defendant has failed properly to set forth his exceptions. “Such exceptions are completely ineffectual and will not be considered on appeal. Rule 21, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals. [Citations omitted.] However, in the absence of exceptions, or when exceptions have not been properly preserved in accordance with our Rules of Practice, the appeal will be taken as an exception to the judgment. Holden v. Holden, 245 [579]*579N.C. 1, 95 S.E. 2d 118 (1956).” Moore v. Strickland, 23 N.C., App. 732, 733, 209 S.E. 2d 830 (1974). Our inquiry is thus limited to the question whether error appears on the face of the record.

We find no error appearing on the face of the record. Indeed, a review of the entire record reveals no prejudicial error. We note that defendant’s brief contains statements probably intended as explanation or justification. However, nothing appears in the record which would indicate that there was a justifiable reason for counsel’s failure to appear, nor does the record contain anything which would indicate any abuse of discretion on the part of the court in refusing to reopen the case and continue it.

Affirmed.

Judges Parker and Hedrick concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 S.E.2d 526, 24 N.C. App. 577, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-peoples-bank-trust-co-ncctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack