Aycock v. Richardson
| Decision Date | 20 November 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 531,531 |
| Citation | 100 S.E.2d 379,247 N.C. 233 |
| Parties | Ben F. AYCOCK v. Therman L. RICHARDSON and Glenn A. Winecoff. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Llewellyn & Green, M. B. Sherrin, Concord, for plaintiff appellant.
John Hugh Williams, Concord, for defendants appellees.
It is provided by statute, G.S. § 1-279, that the appeal from a judgment rendered in term must be taken within ten days after its rendition, unless the record shows an appeal taken at the trial, which is sufficient. And it is provided by statute G.S. § 1-280 that within the time prescribed in G.S. § 1-279 the appellant shall cause his appeal to be entered by the Clerk on the judgment docket and notice therof to be given to the adverse party unless the record shows an appeal taken or prayed at the trial, which is sufficient.
Interpreting these two statutes the Court holds the provisions are jurisdictional, and unless complied with this Court acquires no jurisdiction of the appeal, and must dismiss it. See Mason v. Moore Co. Com'rs, 229 N.C. 626, 51 S.E.2d 6, and cases cited.
Moreover, the Clerk of this Court, at its direction, has obtained from Clerk of Superior Court of Cabarrus County certificate in which he certifies that: 'I have examined the minutes in the above entitled action; that said minutes contain no entries of appeal either by the plaintiff or by the defendant.'
Nevertheless, in case in case in hand, the Court has reviewed the record and purported case on appeal, and finds no prejudicial error. The case appears to have been fairly and fully presented to the jury, and the jury has found that neither plaintiff nor defendants were guilty of negligence procimately causing the alleged injuries and damage.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wolfe v. State of North Carolina
...12 S.E. 383. Here, the case on appeal was not settled by the trial judge, and no motion for certiorari was made. 11. In Aycock v. Richardson, 247 N.C. 233, 100 S.E.2d 379, and Mason v. Moore County Board, 229 N.C. 626, 51 S.E.2d 6, the court went beyond the record for the restricted and qui......
-
Church v. Decker
...320, 322, 146 S.E.2d 87, 88 (1966); Walter Corp. v. Gilliam, 260 N.C. 211, 212, 132 S.E.2d 313, 315 (1963); Aycock v. Richardson, 247 N.C. 233, 234, 100 S.E.2d 379, 380 (1957); and Dunn v. Highway Commission, 1 N.C. App. 116, 118, 160 S.E. 2d 113, 114 (1968)). The record clearly establishes......
-
Teague v. Teague, 706
...are jurisdictional and unless complied with this Court acquires no jurisdiction of the appeal and must [be dismissed].' Aycock v. Richardson, 247 N.C. 233, 100 S.E.2d 379. Since this Court acquired no jurisdiction, the case was still in the Superior Court and the attempted appeal was subjec......
-
Oliver v. Williams, 690
...no jurisdiction of a purported appeal and must dismiss it. Walter Corporation v. Gilliam, 260 N.C. 211, 132 S.E.2d 313; Aycock v. Richardson, 247 N.C. 233, 100 S.E.2d 379; Mason v. Moore County Board of Com'rs., 229 N.C. 626, 51 S.E.2d 6. Defendants made their motion in writing to dismiss t......