Triplett v. . Foster

18 S.E. 714, 113 N.C. 389
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided September 5, 1893·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Clark, J.:

This is a motion to docket and dismiss under Rule 17. This motion was not made at the close of the call of the docket of the district to which it belongs, but since. *390 And now, during the same term, being the first term of this Court after the trial below, the appellant has brought up the transcript of the appeal and docketed the same. This brings the case directly under Bryan v. Moving, 99 N. C., 16, as explained in Bailey v. Brown, 105 N. C., 127, on p. 130.

If, notwithstanding his failure to docket in time for argument at this term, the appellant thus obtains a delay of six months, the appellee himself has been negligent in not moving to docket and dismiss at the close of the call of causes from that district, as he might have done. Vigilant-ibus, non dormientibus leges subveniunt.

Motion Denied.

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

Triplett v. . Foster, 18 S.E. 714, 113 N.C. 389 (N.C. 1893).

18 S.E. 714 (Triplett v. . Foster) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McLean v. . McDonald
95 S.E. 769 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1918)
County Board of Education v. County of Wake
83 S.E. 257 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1914)
Benedict v. Jones.
42 S.E. 909 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1902)
Armour Packing Co. v. Williams
29 S.E. 366 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1898)
Rothchild v. . McNichol
28 S.E. 364 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
William v. . Montague
28 S.E. 137 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
Speller v. . Speller
26 S.E. 160 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1896)
Haynes v. . Coward
21 S.E. 690 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1895)
Paine v. . Cureton
19 S.E. 631 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1894)