Covington v. Hanes Hosiery Mills Co

• Citation: 142 S.E. 705
• Decision Date: 18 April 1928
• Docket Number: (No. 352.)
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: COVINGTON. v. HANES HOSIERY MILLS CO. et al.

142 S.E. 705

(195 N.C. 478)

COVINGTON.

v.HANES HOSIERY MILLS CO. et al.

(No. 352.)

Supreme Court erf North Carolina.

April 18, 1928.

Appeal from Superior Court, Forsyth, County; Lyon, Special Judge.

Action by N. O. Covington against the Hanes Hosiery Mills Company and others, to recover for a personal injury resulting in damage to plaintiff's leg and ankle, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendants. A judgment of nonsuit entered in the county court was affirmed by the superior court, and plaintiff appeals. Appeal dismissed.

L. W. Ferguson and W. L. Morris, both of Winston-Salem, for appellant.

H. Z. Taylor and Fred M. Parrish, of Winston-Salem, for appellee Southern Construction Co.

Manly, Hendren & Womble, of WinstonSalem, for appellee H. H. Stewart.

STACY, C. J. From a judgment of nonsuit, entered at the close of plaintiff's evidence, June 23, 1927, in the Forsyth county court, plaintiff appealed to the superior court of said county, where the judgment of the county court was upheld and affirmed, September term, 1927. Notice of appeal to the Supreme Court was given at said term and plaintiff allowed to appeal in forma pauperis. The record was filed in this court March 16, 1928, and the case called for argument April 3, upon the call of the docket from the eleventh district, the district to which it belongs. No brief has been filed by plaintiff, appellant, but we are referred in one of his assignments of error to a brief filed in the superior court, and invited to examine the authorities cited therein. It does not appear that the appellees are even aware of the presence of the case on our docket, as they have filed no brief and lodged no motion to dismiss the appeal.

It seems that the appellant has allowed the case to take its course "like a log floating down a stream" since it was docketed here, and, as all who are acquainted with our rules would expect, it has now "crossed the bar and is drifting but to sea"; i. e., the appeal is dismissed.

We have said in a number of cases that a lawsuit is a serious matter, and should be given such attention as a prudent man gives to his important business. Hyde County Land & Lumber Co. v. Thomasville Chair Co., 190 N. C. 437, 130 S. E. 12. "When a man has a case in court, the best thing he can do is to attend to it." Clark, C. J., in Pepper v. Clegg, 132 N. C. 312, 43 S. E. 906.

The rules governing appeals in the Supreme Court are mandatory, and not directory. They may not be abrogated or set at naught (1) by act of the Legislature; (2) by order of the judge of the superior court; (3) by consent of litigants or counsel. State v. Crowder, 195 N. C. 335, 142 S. E. 222. The court has not only found it necessary to adopt them, but equally imperative to enforce them and to enforce them uniformly. Waller v. Dudley, 193 N. C. 354, 137 S. E. 149.

For the convenience of litigants, counsel, and the court, a fixed schedule is arranged for each term of the court and a time set apart for the call of the docket from each of the judicial districts of the state. The calls are made in the order in which the districts are numbered. It can readily be seen, therefore, that, unless appeals are ready for argument at the time allotted to the district from which they come, a disarrangement of the calendar necessarily follows, and this often results in delay, and not infrequently in serious inconvenience. The work of the court is constantly...