H.L. Beck & Co. v. Bank of Thomasville

• Decision Date: 15 November 1911
• Citation: 72 S.E. 632,157 N.C. 105
• Parties: H. L. BECK & CO. v. BANK OF THOMASVILLE et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

72 S.E. 632

157 N.C. 105

H. L. BECK & CO. v. BANK OF THOMASVILLE et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

November 15, 1911

Appeal from Superior Court, Davidson County; Long, Judge.

Action by H. L. Beck & Co. against the Bank of Thomasville and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Dismissed.

Plaintiff brought two actions, one against defendant bank to correct certain errors in plaintiff's account, and the other against its cashier for slander, injury to plaintiff's credit, and the wrongful protest of plaintiff's checks. These actions being consolidated, all matters of account involved in the actions were referred, reserving, however for trial by jury the issues raised in the pleadings as to slander, refusing payment of checks and protesting checks for nonpayment, and other torts. Held, that a judgment for defendant entered on the referee's report prior to the trial of the reserved issues was interlocutory, and not appealable.

E. E Raper, Walser & Walser, and Thos. J. Shaw, for appellant.

Watson Buxton & Watson, for appellees.

ALLEN J.

The plaintiff instituted two actions in the superior court of Davidson county; one being against the bank of Thomasville and the other against J. L. Armfield, its cashier. These actions were consolidated by order of court. The plaintiffs allege certain errors in their account with the bank, which they ask to have corrected, and also that they are entitled to recover damages for slander, injury to their credit, and the wrongful protesting of checks they issued. No objection was made as to misjoinder, and at August term, 1909, an order of reference was made as to "all matters of account involved in the actions," but expressly reserving for trial by jury "the issues raised in the pleadings as to slander, refusing payment of checks, and protesting checks for nonpayment and other torts." The referee filed his report, and, upon exceptions being filed, the judge heard the same, and entered his judgment, from which an appeal is taken to this court. The issues reserved in the order of reference have not been tried.

In this condition of the record, the appeal is premature, and must be dismissed. As was said by Justice Hoke in Pritchard v Spring Company, 151 N.C. 249, 65 S.E. 968: "If a departure from this procedure is allowed in one case, it could be insisted upon in another, and each claimant, conceiving himself aggrieved, could bring the cause...