Wallace Bros. v. Douglas

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Wallace Bros. v. Douglas

10 S.E. 1043, 105 N.C. 42

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 5, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 10 S.E. 1043 (Wallace Bros. v. Douglas) 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

Wallace Bros. v. Douglas, 10 S.E. 1043, 105 N.C. 42 (N.C. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Clabk, J.

after stating the case: The appeal was premature and improvidently taken, and must be dismissed. The plaintiffs should have had their exception noted in the record, and if, on the coming in of the amended report and a final judgment thereon, they find it necessary to appeal, the exception will then be reviewed. It may be that, as they themselves suggest, other evidence may be found to supply the place of that excluded, or when the final judgment is rendered they may not desire to appeal. The Court will not take “two bites at a cherry.” The rule of practice is settled by so many decisions that we only refer to Jones v. Call, 89 N. C., 188; Torrence v. Davidson, 90 N. C., 2; Lutz v. Cline, 89 N. C., 186; Grant v. Reese, 90 N. C., 3; Leak v. Covington, 95 N. C., 193. In Grant v. Reese, the Court say: “Slight attention to the decisions of the Court would prevent miscarriages like the present, and facilitate the administration of justice.”-

Appeal dismissed.

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

Clabk, J.

after stating the case: The appeal was premature and improvidently taken, and must be dismissed. The plaintiffs should have had their exception noted in the record, and if, on the coming in of the amended report and a final judgment thereon, they find it necessary to appeal, the exception will then be reviewed. It may be that, as they themselves suggest, other evidence may be found to supply the place of that excluded, or when the final judgment is rendered they may not desire to appeal. The Court will not take “two bites at a cherry.” The rule of practice is settled by so many decisions that we only refer to Jones v. Call, 89 N. C., 188; Torrence v. Davidson, 90 N. C., 2; Lutz v. Cline, 89 N. C., 186; Grant v. Reese, 90 N. C., 3; Leak v. Covington, 95 N. C., 193. In Grant v. Reese, the Court say: “Slight attention to the decisions of the Court would prevent miscarriages like the present, and facilitate the administration of justice.”-

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 S.E. 1043, 105 N.C. 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallace-bros-v-douglas-nc-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack