Bohannon v. Va. Trust Co

Decision Date21 May 1930
Docket NumberNo. 594.,594.
Citation153 S.E. 263
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesBOHANNON. v. VIRGINIA TRUST CO.

Appeal from Superior Court, Buncombe County; MacRae, Special Judge.

Action by Mary W. Bohannon against the Virginia Trust Company. From an order dissolving a temporary restraining order, plaintiff appeals.

Error.

See, also, 153 S. E. 262.

After this cause had been removed from Catawba county to Buncombe county for trial and while an appeal from said order was pending, the defendant lodged a motion before "Hon. Cameron F. MacRae, Judge Presiding in the Nineteenth Judicial District, " to dissolve the temporary restraining order, originally entered in the cause and made returnable before Hon. A. M. Stack at Monroe, N. C, but upon which no hearing had been held or ruling made.

The plaintiff, in apt time, objected to the jurisdiction and authority of MacRae, special judge, to make or enter any order affecting the rights of the plaintiff, which objection was overruled, and an order was entered February 13, 1930, by "His Honor, Cameron F. MacRae, Judge presiding and holding the courts of the Nineteenth Judicial District, at his Chambers in the City of Asheville, " dissolving and dismissing said temporary restraining order.

Plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.

Louis A. Whitener and A. A. Whitener, both of Hickory, for appellant.

Bourne, Parker & Jones, of Asheville, for respondent.

STACY, C. J. (after stating the case).

The order, here challenged, was improvidently entered because an appeal had been taken from the order removing the cause to Buncombe county for trial, and this stayed "all further proceedings in the court below upon the judgment appealed from, or upon the matter embraced therein." C. S. § 655; Pruett v. Power Co., 167 N. C. 598, 83 S. E. 830.

But for the order of removal, which was challenged by the appeal therefrom, the superior court of Buncombe county was without jurisdiction to hear the matter. Hence, the very question sought to be determined by the appeal from the order of removal was the right of the superior court of Catawba county to transfer the cause to Buncombe county for trial. McRae v. Board of Com'rs of New Hanover County, 74 N. C. 415.

Nothing was said in Huntley v. Express Co., 191 N. C. 696, 132 S. E. 786, which militates against our present position, for the decision in that case was made to rest upon other statutes and other laws.

Again, judicial notice may be taken of the fact that Hon. Cameron F. MacRae is one of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Veazey v. City of Durham, 743
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • February 3, 1950
    ...225 N.C. 508, 35 S.E.2d 617; Ragan v. Ragan, 214 N.C. 36, 197 S.E. 554; Vaughan v. Vaughan, 211 N.C. 354, 190 S.E. 492; Bohannon v. Trust Co., 198 N.C. 702, 153 S.E. 263; Likas v. Lackey, 186 N.C. 398, 119 S.E. 763; Pruett v. Power Co., 167 N.C. 598, 83 S.E. 830; Combes v. Adams, 150 N.C. 6......
  • State v. Anderson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • April 7, 1948
    ...Grady was an Emergency Judge of the Superior Court at the times in question. Reid v. Reid, 199 N.C. 740, 155 S.E. 719; Bohan-non v. Trust Co., 198 N.C. 702, 153 S.E. 263. When the commission of the Governor is read and construed in its entirety in the light of these matters, it becomes indi......
  • Wilson v. Allsbrook
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • January 10, 1934
    ...any additional hearing or notice to the parties. This was irregular. Griffin v. Bank, 205 N. C. 253, 171 S. E. 71; Bohannon v. Trust Co., 198 N. O. 702, 153 S. E. 263; Pruett v. Power Co., 167 N. C. 598, S3 S. E. 830. Recognizing the inappropriateness of this procedure, the referee, followi......
  • Griffin v. Bank Of Coleridge, 213.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • October 11, 1933
    ...their appeal from the judgment overruling the demurrer had been heard and determined. C. S. § 655; Bohannon v. Trust Co., 198 N. 0. 702, 153 S. E. 263; Pruett v. Power Co., 167 N. C. 598, 83 S. E. 830. "While the court has held that an appeal from an interlocutory order leaves the action fo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT