White Way Laundry, Inc. v. Underwood

Supreme Court of North Carolina

White Way Laundry, Inc. v. Underwood

16 S.E.2d 703, 220 N.C. 152, 1941 N.C. LEXIS 493

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 8, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 16 S.E.2d 703 (White Way Laundry, Inc. v. Underwood) 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

White Way Laundry, Inc. v. Underwood, 16 S.E.2d 703, 220 N.C. 152, 1941 N.C. LEXIS 493 (N.C. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

WiNBOrne, J.

Appellant challenges the authority of Stevens, J., after adjournment of January-Eebruary Term, 1941, of Superior Court of Lee County, and when in another district, to find facts upon which to hold, and to adjudge that, after the entry of the order from which plaintiffs had appealed to Supreme Court, appellant had made a general appearance in the cause, thereby rendering moot the question involved on appeal by plaintiffs then pending. The uniform decisions of this Court sustain the challenge. Branch v. Walker, 92 N. C., 87; Delafield v. Construction Co., 115 N. C., 21, 20 S. E., 167; May v. Ins. Co., 172 N. C., 795, 90 S. E., 890; Dunn v. Taylor, 187 N. C., 385, 121 S. E., 659; Bisanar v. Suttlemyre, 193 N. C., 711, 138 S. E., 1; S. v. Crowder, 195 N. C., 335, 142 S. E., 222; Turnage v. Dunn, 196 N. C., 105, 144 S. E., 521; Drug Co. v. Patterson, 198 N. C., 548, 152 S. E., 632; Hinnant v. Ins. Co., 204 N. C., 307, 168 S. E., 206; Pendergraph v. Davis, 205 N. C., 29, 169 S. E., 815; Bank v. Hagaman, 208 N. C., 191, 179 S. E., 759, and others.

In Bisanar v. Suttlemyre, supra, the Court said: “It is the uniform ' holding in this jurisdiction that, except by consent, or unless authorized by statute, a judge of the Superior Court, even in his own district, has no authority to hear a cause, or to make an order substantially affecting the rights of the parties, outside of the county in which the action is pending,” citing numerous decisions.

While it is provided by statute, O'. S., 644, that when the judge from whose ruling appeal is taken to Supreme Court, has left the district before notice of disagreement as to case on appeal, he may settle the case *155 on appeal without returning to tbe district, be bas no authority to do more, except by consent, which is lacking in the present case.

In this connection the Court, in accordance with a well established principle (S. v. R. R., 141 N. C., 846, 54 S. E., 294), takes judicial notice of the political subdivisions of the State, and notes that Lee County, where the present action is pending, is in the Fourth Judicial District, and that Warsaw, where the order of Stevens, J., was made, is in Duplin County in the Sixth Judicial District.

The decision here is without prejudice to the rights of the parties on hearing of question when and if presented at appropriate time and place before a judge authorized to act.

Beversed.

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

WiNBOrne, J.

Appellant challenges the authority of Stevens, J., after adjournment of January-Eebruary Term, 1941, of Superior Court of Lee County, and when in another district, to find facts upon which to hold, and to adjudge that, after the entry of the order from which plaintiffs had appealed to Supreme Court, appellant had made a general appearance in the cause, thereby rendering moot the question involved on appeal by plaintiffs then pending. The uniform decisions of this Court sustain the challenge. Branch v. Walker, 92 N. C., 87; Delafield v. Construction Co., 115 N. C., 21, 20 S. E., 167; May v. Ins. Co., 172 N. C., 795, 90 S. E., 890; Dunn v. Taylor, 187 N. C., 385, 121 S. E., 659; Bisanar v. Suttlemyre, 193 N. C., 711, 138 S. E., 1; S. v. Crowder, 195 N. C., 335, 142 S. E., 222; Turnage v. Dunn, 196 N. C., 105, 144 S. E., 521; Drug Co. v. Patterson, 198 N. C., 548, 152 S. E., 632; Hinnant v. Ins. Co., 204 N. C., 307, 168 S. E., 206; Pendergraph v. Davis, 205 N. C., 29, 169 S. E., 815; Bank v. Hagaman, 208 N. C., 191, 179 S. E., 759, and others.

In Bisanar v. Suttlemyre, supra, the Court said: “It is the uniform ' holding in this jurisdiction that, except by consent, or unless authorized by statute, a judge of the Superior Court, even in his own district, has no authority to hear a cause, or to make an order substantially affecting the rights of the parties, outside of the county in which the action is pending,” citing numerous decisions.

While it is provided by statute, O'. S., 644, that when the judge from whose ruling appeal is taken to Supreme Court, has left the district before notice of disagreement as to case on appeal, he may settle the case *155 on appeal without returning to tbe district, be bas no authority to do more, except by consent, which is lacking in the present case.

In this connection the Court, in accordance with a well established principle (S. v. R. R., 141 N. C., 846, 54 S. E., 294), takes judicial notice of the political subdivisions of the State, and notes that Lee County, where the present action is pending, is in the Fourth Judicial District, and that Warsaw, where the order of Stevens, J., was made, is in Duplin County in the Sixth Judicial District.

The decision here is without prejudice to the rights of the parties on hearing of question when and if presented at appropriate time and place before a judge authorized to act.

Beversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 S.E.2d 703, 220 N.C. 152, 1941 N.C. LEXIS 493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-way-laundry-inc-v-underwood-nc-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack