Whitaker v. . Dunn
This text of 29 S.E. 54 (Whitaker v. . Dunn) 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.
Opinion
This action was begun before a Justice of the Peace to obtain possession of certain personal property. On appeal in the Superior Court the defendant moved to dismiss because the summons did not state the value of the property, which was refused, and the plaintiff’s motion to amend by inserting $32, as the *104 value was granted. The defendant appealed. The appeal is premature as to the refusal to dismiss. Lowe v. Accident Association, 115 N. C., 18; Plemmons v. Improvement Co., 108 N. C., 614. An order allowing an amendment is ordinarily not appealable (Goodwin v. Fertilizer Works, 121 N. C., 91) but if it had been ap-pealable the proper course was to note the exception and appeal from the final judgment. For these reasons the appeal must be dismissed, but it is not improper to say that the amendment having the effect to show, and not to confer, jurisdiction was properly allowed. McPhail v. Johnson, 115 N. C., 298, and cases there cited; Gillam v. Ins. Co., 121 N. C., 369.
Appeal dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
29 S.E. 54, 122 N.C. 103, 1898 N.C. LEXIS 201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitaker-v-dunn-nc-1898.