Fitzgerald, In re
| Decision Date | 12 October 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 236,236 |
| Citation | 242 N.C. 732,89 S.E.2d 462 |
| Parties | In re Linwood Grady FITZGERALD. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Fred H. Hasty, Charlotte, for respondent appellant.
Maurice A. Weinstein, William J. Waggoner, Charlotte, for petitioner appellee.
It is apparent that the appeal is premature. The question of the custody of the child has not been considered or determined. The order is interlocutory and no substantial right of the appellant has been affected. G.S. § 1-271. DeBruhl v. State Highway & Public Works Comm., 241 N.C. 616, 86 S.E.2d 200.
Appeal dismissed.
WINBORNE and HIGGINS, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The foregoing opinion was prepared by DEVIN, Emergency Justice, while he was serving in place of WINBORNE, J., who was absent on account of his physical condition. It is now adopted by the Court and ordered filed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Workman v. Workman
...of her custody might be determined. Therefore, we are not called upon to consider that order on this appeal. Even so, see In re Fitzgerald, 242 N.C. 732, 89 S.E.2d 462. The appellant only assigns as error the order of the court entered on 10 May, 1955, overruling his demurrer. Hence, the ru......
- Burns v. Gardner, 235