Vance v. Hampton

124 S.E.2d 527, 256 N.C. 557, 1962 N.C. LEXIS 484
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMarch 21, 1962
Docket163
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 124 S.E.2d 527 (Vance v. Hampton) 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
Vance v. Hampton, 124 S.E.2d 527, 256 N.C. 557, 1962 N.C. LEXIS 484 (N.C. 1962).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

An assignment of error not supported by an exception is ineffectual. Barnette v. Woody, 242 N.C. 424, 88 S.E. 2d 223. Here, no exception appears in the entire case on appeal. Hence, there is no basis for the assignments of error appellant attempts to set forth; and no question of law is presented to this Court for decision. Rigsbee v. Perkins, 242 N.C. 502, 87 S.E. 2d 926; Tynes v. Davis, 244 N.C. 528, 94 S.E. 2d 496. See Rules 19(3) and 21, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 254 N.C. 783, et seq. Purported exceptions appearing nowhere except in the assignments of error will not be considered on appeal. Holden v. Holden, 245 N.C. 1, 95 S.E. 2d 118.

The only question raised by an exception to the judgment is whether error of law appears upon the face of the record. Lowie & Co. v. Atkins, 245 N.C. 98, 95 S.E. 2d 271, and cases cited. Here, no error of law appears on the face of the record. Hence, Judge Walker’s order of August 15, 1961, is affirmed.

It is noted that neither Judge Earthing’s order of June 16, 1961, nor Judge Walker’s order of August 15, 1961, dismisses the action. If plaintiff should file a complaint herein and defendants should answer, and an issue is raised by the pleadings as to the validity of the action taken at the meeting held July 18, 1961, the findings of fact or recitals in Judge Walker’s order of August 15, 1961, relevant solely in determining whether the temporary restraining order of July 29, 1961, should be continued in effect or dissolved, will not be binding upon the parties at trial.

Affirmed.

Sharp, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Related

Hawkins v. Hawkins
204 S.E.2d 912 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1974)
State v. Green
185 S.E.2d 872 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1972)
State v. Kirby
171 S.E.2d 416 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1970)
State v. Massey
161 S.E.2d 103 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1968)
In Re the Appeal of Reeves Broadcasting Corp.
160 S.E.2d 728 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1968)
Langley v. Langley
150 S.E.2d 764 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1966)
Clark Equipment Company v. Johnson
134 S.E.2d 327 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)
Gene's, Inc. v. City of Charlotte
129 S.E.2d 889 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1963)
State v. Rorie
128 S.E.2d 229 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
124 S.E.2d 527, 256 N.C. 557, 1962 N.C. LEXIS 484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vance-v-hampton-nc-1962.