Watts v. . Staton

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Watts v. . Staton

131 S.E. 567, 191 N.C. 215, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 40

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 17, 1926

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 131 S.E. 567 (Watts v. . Staton) 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

Watts v. . Staton, 131 S.E. 567, 191 N.C. 215, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 40 (N.C. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The defendants, appearing specially, moved before the clerk to dismiss this action and several others, consolidated for purposes of the present motion, upon the ground that'the individual sureties on the plaintiffs’ prosecution bonds had not justified before the clerk as required by Rule 2 of the rules of practice in the Superior Courts (185 N. C., 807), in fact, that there were no justifications of said bonds at all. The plaintiffs in the several suits resisted the motion and offered to have their individual bondsmen justify before the clerk then and there, agreeable to the requirements of the rule.

Some question having arisen as to whether the clerk had the power to allow the justifications, after summonses had been issued and complaints filed, “it was agreed by both sides that all that should be decided was whether the clerk had the right to allow such justifications; whether the act was mandatory or not.” -In accordance with this agreement, the clerk decided that he “had the right to act in the premises and to allow said bonds to he justified” or not, in his discretion, though- his discretion has not yet been exercised, and thereupon denied the motion to dismiss, holding that if his authority to decide the question be sustained, he would then require the sureties to justify and overrule the motion to dismiss or deny the plaintiffs the right to have their individual bondsmen justify and sustain the motion to dismiss.

On appeal to the judge of the Superior Court, the clerk’s judgment was affirmed and the causes remanded with direction that the clerk proceed to act in the matters.

*216 It is clear tbat tbis appeal was prematurely taken and must be dismissed. Christian v. R. R., 136 N. C., 321; Cooper v. Wyman, 122 N. C., 784. No appeal lies from a refusal to dismiss an action under circumstances like tbe present. Bradshaw v. Bank, 172 N. C., 632; Williams v. Bailey, 177 N. C., p. 40. Tbe question sought to be presented is purely academic. Tbe clerk’s judgment was in no sense final; be simply decided tbat be bad tbe power to act, but bas not yet acted; bis judgment determined no rights of tbe parties.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Stacy, C. J.

The defendants, appearing specially, moved before the clerk to dismiss this action and several others, consolidated for purposes of the present motion, upon the ground that'the individual sureties on the plaintiffs’ prosecution bonds had not justified before the clerk as required by Rule 2 of the rules of practice in the Superior Courts (185 N. C., 807), in fact, that there were no justifications of said bonds at all. The plaintiffs in the several suits resisted the motion and offered to have their individual bondsmen justify before the clerk then and there, agreeable to the requirements of the rule.

Some question having arisen as to whether the clerk had the power to allow the justifications, after summonses had been issued and complaints filed, “it was agreed by both sides that all that should be decided was whether the clerk had the right to allow such justifications; whether the act was mandatory or not.” -In accordance with this agreement, the clerk decided that he “had the right to act in the premises and to allow said bonds to he justified” or not, in his discretion, though- his discretion has not yet been exercised, and thereupon denied the motion to dismiss, holding that if his authority to decide the question be sustained, he would then require the sureties to justify and overrule the motion to dismiss or deny the plaintiffs the right to have their individual bondsmen justify and sustain the motion to dismiss.

On appeal to the judge of the Superior Court, the clerk’s judgment was affirmed and the causes remanded with direction that the clerk proceed to act in the matters.

*216 It is clear tbat tbis appeal was prematurely taken and must be dismissed. Christian v. R. R., 136 N. C., 321; Cooper v. Wyman, 122 N. C., 784. No appeal lies from a refusal to dismiss an action under circumstances like tbe present. Bradshaw v. Bank, 172 N. C., 632; Williams v. Bailey, 177 N. C., p. 40. Tbe question sought to be presented is purely academic. Tbe clerk’s judgment was in no sense final; be simply decided tbat be bad tbe power to act, but bas not yet acted; bis judgment determined no rights of tbe parties.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 S.E. 567, 191 N.C. 215, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watts-v-staton-nc-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack