Grant v. Reese
| Decision Date | 28 February 1884 |
| Citation | 90 N.C. 3 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | JAS. W. GRANT, Adm'r, v. W. A. REESE and others. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
CIVIL ACTION tried at Fall Term, 1880, of NORTHAMPTON Superior Court, before Graves, J.
Mr. R. B. Peebles, for plaintiff .
Messrs. Gilliam & Gatling, W. C. Bowen and W. @## @Bagley, for defendants
.
The record in this case is very voluminous, and the exceptions numerous, indefinite, imperfectly stated and complicated. The court, from time to time, has given them much consideration. At last, at the end of them, we find that the appeal was improvidently taken, and the case is not properly before us.
The trial of the action involved long and intricate accounts. The court ordered a reference; the referee took much testimony, stated the accounts and made report of the same. To this report the plaintiff and the defendants filed numerous exceptions, and the case was heard upon the report and the exceptions thereto. The court sustained some of the exceptions, overruled others, and sustained others in part and overruled them in part, and made an order recommitting the report to the referee, with instructions to correct the same and make it conform to the ruling of the court. From this order and the rulings of the court in respect to the exceptions complained of by the plaintiff, he appealed to this court.
It is manifest that an appeal did not lie at the present stage of the action. There was no order or judgment from which an appeal might be taken until the final judgment should be entered. The exceptions, both of the plaintiff and the defendants, should have been carefully and definitely made and noted in the record at the time they were taken, and upon the coming in of the amended report, the court might have corrected its own errors, if such were brought to its attention, and then have given a final judgment, from which an appeal might be taken, bringing up all the exceptions and assignments of error for review and correction here. This is the orderly course, and that contemplated by the statute providing for appeals to this court.
Although we have considered the case and could promptly decide the questions presented in the record for our decision, if the case were properly before us, we are not at liberty to do so. We have no authority to decide cases and questions not properly constituted before us, and it is the duty of the court to see that cases come before it according to law. It is essential to the integrity...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Billings v. Observer
-
Billings v. Charlotte Observer
... ... few of them; the most recent: Commissioners v ... Satchwell, 88 N.C. 1; Lutz v. Cline, 89 N.C ... 186; Jones v. Call, 89 N.C. 188; Grant v ... Reese, 90 N.C. 3; Arrington v. Arrington, 91 ... N.C. 301. The practice thus established upon its intrinsic ... merits, and to avoid ... ...
-
Wallace v. Douglas
...so many decisions that weonly refer to Jones v. Call, 89 N. C. 188; Torrence v. Davidson, 90 N. C. 2; Lutz v. Cline, 89 N. C. 186; Grant v. Reese, 90 N. C. 3; Leak v. Covington, 95 N. C. 193. In Grant v. Reese, just cited, the court say: " Slight attention to the decisions of the court woul......
-
Best v. Dunn
... ... Action ... by D. W. Best and wife against John W. Dunn and others. From ... the refusal of the trial court to grant plaintiffs' ... motion to remand the case to the clerk, and from an order ... permitting defendants to make a new verification of the ... answer, ... 127.] ... but it was not held that the court could not permit a proper ... verification. As was said by Merrimon, J., in Grant v ... Reese, 90 N.C. 3, "Slight attention to the ... decisions of the court would prevent miscarriages like the ... present, and facilitate the administration ... ...