Williams v. East Coast Sales, Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Williams v. East Coast Sales, Inc.

274 S.E.2d 276, 50 N.C. App. 565, 1981 N.C. App. LEXIS 2134

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 3, 1981

Docket806SC643

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 274 S.E.2d 276 (Williams v. East Coast Sales, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. East Coast Sales, Inc., 274 S.E.2d 276, 50 N.C. App. 565, 1981 N.C. App. LEXIS 2134 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

WEBB, Judge.

The threshold question in this case is whether the order denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss is appealable. We hold that it is not. The appealability of orders which do not finally dispose of all claims has been passed on many times by the appellate courts in this State. See Whalehead Properties v. Coastland Corp., 299 N.C. 270, 261 S.E. 2d 899 (1980); Industries, Inc. v. Insurance Co., 296 N.C. 486, 251 S.E. 2d 443 (1979); Nasco Equipment Co. v. Mason, 291 *566 N.C. 145, 229 S.E. 2d 278 (1976); Newton v. Insurance Co., 291 N.C. 105, 229 S.E. 2d 297 (1976); Oestreicher v. Stores, 290 N.C. 118, 225 S.E. 2d 797 (1976); Highway Commission v. Nuckles, 271 N.C. 1, 155 S.E. 2d 772 (1967); Beck v. Assurance Co., 36 N.C. App. 218, 243 S.E. 2d 414 (1978). These cases interpret G.S. 1-277, G.S. 7A-27, and G.S. 1A-1, Rule 54(b). They hold that unless an interlocutory order affects some substantial right claimed by the appellant and will work an injury to him if not corrected before a final judgment, the order is not appealable. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 54(b) additionally applies in certain cases involving multiple parties or multiple claims. In the case sub judice there are not mutiple claims, rather there are three claims which grow from one incident. We have held in Hankins v. Somers, 39 N.C. App. 617, 251 S.E. 2d 640 (1979) that the denial of a motion to dismiss is not appealable. That case held that the party whose motion is denied is not injured if he cannot appeal until after a final judgment has been entered. We hold we are bound by Han-kins.

Appeal dismissed.

Judges MARTIN (Harry C.) and WHICHARD concur.

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

WEBB, Judge.

The threshold question in this case is whether the order denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss is appealable. We hold that it is not. The appealability of orders which do not finally dispose of all claims has been passed on many times by the appellate courts in this State. See Whalehead Properties v. Coastland Corp., 299 N.C. 270, 261 S.E. 2d 899 (1980); Industries, Inc. v. Insurance Co., 296 N.C. 486, 251 S.E. 2d 443 (1979); Nasco Equipment Co. v. Mason, 291 *566 N.C. 145, 229 S.E. 2d 278 (1976); Newton v. Insurance Co., 291 N.C. 105, 229 S.E. 2d 297 (1976); Oestreicher v. Stores, 290 N.C. 118, 225 S.E. 2d 797 (1976); Highway Commission v. Nuckles, 271 N.C. 1, 155 S.E. 2d 772 (1967); Beck v. Assurance Co., 36 N.C. App. 218, 243 S.E. 2d 414 (1978). These cases interpret G.S. 1-277, G.S. 7A-27, and G.S. 1A-1, Rule 54(b). They hold that unless an interlocutory order affects some substantial right claimed by the appellant and will work an injury to him if not corrected before a final judgment, the order is not appealable. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 54(b) additionally applies in certain cases involving multiple parties or multiple claims. In the case sub judice there are not mutiple claims, rather there are three claims which grow from one incident. We have held in Hankins v. Somers, 39 N.C. App. 617, 251 S.E. 2d 640 (1979) that the denial of a motion to dismiss is not appealable. That case held that the party whose motion is denied is not injured if he cannot appeal until after a final judgment has been entered. We hold we are bound by Han-kins.

Appeal dismissed.

Judges MARTIN (Harry C.) and WHICHARD concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 S.E.2d 276, 50 N.C. App. 565, 1981 N.C. App. LEXIS 2134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-east-coast-sales-inc-ncctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack