Brown v. S. H. Kress & Co, 689.
| Decision Date | 28 January 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 689.,689. |
| Citation | 207 N.C. 722,178 S.E. 248 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | BROWN. v. S. H. KRESS & CO. et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Alley, Judge.
Action by Dorothy Rickman Brown, by her next friend, George C. Brown, against S. H. Kress & Company and another. From an order granting defendants' motion for removal to federal court, plaintiff appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
This action was instituted by the plaintiff in the municipal court of the city of High Point against the corporate defendant and its employee to recover damages in the sum of $20,000 alleged to have been caused by defamation of her character and false imprisonment of her person. The corporate defendant duly filed a petition for removal of the cause from the state court to the federal court grounded upon diversity of citizenship and fraudulent joinder of parties defendant. The clerk and the judge, respectively, of thecourt of first instance denied the petition, which in due course, upon appeal, was heard in the superior court, where the petition was granted, and the case ordered removed to the federal court. To the order of removal the plaintiff excepted and appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors.
York & York, of High Point, for appellant.
Dalton & Pickens and Byron Haworth, all of High Point, for appellees.
The appellant failed to file any appeal bond and also failed to file twenty-five printed or mimeographed copies of her brief, but did file seven typewritten copies thereof.
While the judgment appealed from contains the following: "It further appearing to the Court that the plaintiff is without property or other means of giving security for costs on appeal, * * * it is further ordered that the plaintiff be and she is hereby allowed to appeal in forma pauperis, " it appears that appellant failed to "make affidavit that he (she) is unable by reason of his (her) poverty to give the security required by law, and that he (she) is advised by counsel learned in the law that there is error in matter of law in the decision of the superior court in said action, " as required by C. S. § 649 for appeals in forma pauperis. The requirements of the statute being jurisdictional, the appellant was not relieved by the provision in the judgment of the court from filing the undertaking made necessary by C. S. § 646 to render an appeal effectual, or from filing the twenty-five printed or mimeographed copies of her brief required by rule 22 of this court. "Giving...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shavitz v. City of High Point
...bond are jurisdictional, and, unless the statute is complied with, the appeal is not in this court ...." Brown v. S.H. Kress & Co., 207 N.C. 722, 178 S.E. 248, 249 (1935) (quotation omitted). Such bonds are often required to ensure that payment of costs directly related to the court proceed......
-
Dare County v. North Carolina Dept. of Ins.
...(citing Cox v. Kinston, 217 N.C. 391, 8 S.E.2d 252 (1940)); Caudle v. Morris, 158 N.C. 594, 74 S.E. 98 (1912); Brown v. Kress & Co., 207 N.C. 722, 178 S.E. 248 (1935); Vivian v. Mitchell, 144 N.C. 472, 57 S.E. 167 (1907); Lindsey v. Knights of Honor, 172 N.C. 818, 90 S.E. 1013 (1916) (other......
-
Patterson v. Warner
...least a substantial compliance with such statutes has been held essential to valid appeals or proceedings in error. Brown v. S. H. Kress and Co., 207 N.C. 722, 178 S.E. 248; Southern Ry. Co. v. Thomas, 182 Va. 788, 30 S.E.2d 575. Moreover, statutes restricting the appellate process have bee......
-
Clark v. Clark
...203 N.C. 631, 166 S.E. 732; Powell v. Moore, 204 N.C. 654, 169 S.E. 281; Noble v. Pritchett, 204 N.C. 804, 169 S.E. 618; Brown v. Kress, 207 N.C. 722, 178 S.E. 248; Lupton v. Hawkins, 210 N.C. 658, 188 S.E. Berwer v. Ins. Co. 210 N.C. 814, 188 S.E. 618; Gilmore v. Ins. Co., 214 N.C. 674, 20......