Turrentine v. . Richmond Danville Railroad

92 N.C. 642
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 5, 1885
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 92 N.C. 642 (Turrentine v. . Richmond Danville Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Turrentine v. . Richmond Danville Railroad, 92 N.C. 642 (N.C. 1885).

Opinion

Smith, C. J.

(after stating the facts). There is no error in the ruling of the court. The proceedings had during the sitting of the court are in fieri, and a judgment rendered is subject to be set aside, modified and changed, should the judge upon a reconsideration deem it erroneous or unsatisfactory in any particular. It is not final and conclusive until the term expires and his authority ceases. This is equally true of an appeal, tvhich is subject to the same conditions, and may be defeated by the action of the court in vacating the judgment or in so modifying it as to remove the objectionable part.

*644 As until the term expires there is no final determination of the cause, the appeal in a legal sense is then taken and becomes absolute. Clifton v. Wynne, 81 N. C., 160; Moore v. Hinnant, 90 N. C., 163, and numerous cases referred to in the opinion.

It is manifest then that the judgment is not rendered, that is, not made final and complete until the term closes, and so the appeal is only taken when the judgment becomes absolute and fixed. Otherwise in a protracted term, the cause might be taken out of the jurisdiction and placed beyond the control of the judge. Yet the authorities are clear that his jurisdiction retains the cause in court during the entire term, and subject to his authority.

- The copy was served within the five days, since in counting time the first day is excluded, as provided in section 596 of The Code, and decided in Barcroft v. Roberts, ante, 249. The entry of the appeal on the 12th was but an inchoate, not a consummated act, awaiting the possible intervention of the judge, but to be proceeded with, when his control ■ over the case ceases, within the time limited for the perfection of the appeal. There is no error, and the judgment is affirmed.

No error. Affirmed.

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

Related

Pittsburg Lumber Co. v. Rowe
65 S.E. 750 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1909)
State v. Schenck.
49 S.E. 917 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1905)
Davison v. West Oxford Land Co.
26 S.E. 782 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
Guano Company v. . Hicks
26 S.E. 650 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
Tucker v. . Satterthwaite
27 S.E. 45 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
Delafield v. Lewis Mercer Construction Co.
20 S.E. 167 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1894)
Arrington v. . Arrington
19 S.E. 105 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1894)
Rosenthal v. . Roberson
19 S.E. 667 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1894)
Piedmont Manufacturing Co. v. Buxton
11 S.E. 264 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1890)
Walker v. . Scott
10 S.E. 523 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1889)
Chamblee v. . Baker
95 N.C. 98 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 N.C. 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turrentine-v-richmond-danville-railroad-nc-1885.