Wm. Froneburger v. . H. D. Lee .

66 N.C. 333
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided January 5, 1872·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

DiCK, J.

Under our old system of practice and procedure, a Justice of the Peace had a right to grant a new trial when rendered against an absenRparty, if a proper application was made in ten days afterwards. Rev. Code, ch. 62, sec. 15.

*334 The provisions of this Statute have not been materially changed under our new system. C. C. P., sec. 508.

When both parties to an action are present at a trial in a Justice’s Court, and the case is heard and judgment rendered, a new trial 'Cannot be allowed. The party dissatisfied with the judgment can have a remedy only by appeal to the Superior Court. C. C. P., sec. 528.

There was error in the ruling of His Honor. This will be certified to the end that the proper proceedings may be had to set aside the order for a new trial made by the Justice.

Pee CueiaM. Judgment affirmed.

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

Wm. Froneburger v. . H. D. Lee ., 66 N.C. 333 (N.C. 1872).

66 N.C. 333 (Wm. Froneburger v. . H. D. Lee .) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Salmon Ex Rel. Rogers v. McLean
21 S.E. 178 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1895)
Navassa Guano Co. v. Bridgers
93 N.C. 439 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1885)
Gambill v. . Gambill
89 N.C. 201 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1883)