Hicks v. Gooch
| Decision Date | 31 October 1885 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | JASPER HICKS et al. v. H. S. GOOCH et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
This was a CIVIL ACTION, one of the issues of which was tried before Shepherd, Judge, at Spring Term, 1885, GRANVILLE Superior Court.
The facts are stated sufficiently in the opinion.
Messrs. Batchelor & Devereux and Armistead Jones, for the plaintiff .
Mr. John W. Hayes, for the defendant .
This action is brought upon a claim of title to an undivided moiety of the lands in the complaint mentioned, with a demand for a large sum as damages for the withholding of possession by the defendants. The plaintiffs' title is controverted by the defendants, who allege themselves to be owners in fee of the property. At Spring Term, 1885, of the Superior Court of Granville, an amended complaint was filed, in which is a supplemental demand for an account of the rents and profits, followed by an entry upon the record in these terms:
“And thereupon an issue is made up by and under the direction of the Court, to be submitted to the jury, it being agreed between the parties that the question as to the amount of damages and mesne profits to which the plaintiffs would be entitled, if the issue should be found in their favor, should be reserved and tried hereafter, which said issue is as follows, to-wit:
Are the plaintiffs the owners and entitled to the possession of one undivided half of the land in the amended complaint mentioned and described?”
To this inquiry the jury, under the instructions of the Court, returned an affirmative response, and, after a motion for a new trial made and denied, it was adjudged “that the plaintiffs recover of the defendants one undivided half of the tract of land described by metes and bounds in plaintiffs' amended complaint, and that a writ of possession, issue,” &c., with this concluding sentence, “It is further ordered by the Court that the amount of damages and mesne profiits, to which the plaintiffs are entitled, be submitted to a jury for trial at the next term of this Court, unless the parties hereto shall otherwise agree.”
In this status of the case, with one material issue passed upon by the jury, and the other reserved for trial at the next term, and so far as the record shows, with no adjustment of the claim for damages and profits between the parties, the appeal is taken to this Court for a review of the rulings of the Court upon the one issue tried. We had supposed the rule too well settled and understood by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Penn-Allen Cement Co., Inc. v. Phillips & Sutherland
...to recover, the Supreme Court would not entertain an appeal for reviewing alleged errors on the trial of the issue submitted. Hicks v. Gooch, 93 N.C. 112; Rodman v. Calloway, 117 N.C. 13, 23 S.E. 37." "Fragmentary appeals will not be allowed when the subject-matter could be afterwards consi......
-
Penn-allen Cement Co. Inc v. Sutherland, (No. 413.)
...to recover, the Supreme Court would not entertain an appeal for reviewing alleged errors on the trial of the issue) submitted. Hicks v. Gooch, 93 N. C. 112; Rodman v. Calloway, 117 N. C. 13, 23 S. E. 37." "Fragmentary appeals will not be allowed when the subject-matter could be afterwards c......
-
Gill v. Board of Com'rs of Wake County
...and premature, and relied on Rogerson v. Lumber Co., 136 N.C. 266, 48 S.E. 647; Shelby v. Railroad, 147 N.C. 537, 61 S.E. 377, and Hicks v. Gooch, 93 N.C. 112, but they not applicable. In the first of the cases we said: "We were asked to decide, not the whole controversy, but only a part of......
-
Billings v. Charlotte Observer
...v. Lumber Co., 136 N.C. 266, 48 S.E. 647; Benton v. Collins, 121 N.C. 66, 28 S.E. 59; Hilliard v. Oram, 106 N.C. 467, 11 S.E. 514; Hicks v. Gooch, 93 N.C. 112. Benton v. Collins, supra, Faircloth, C.J., delivering the opinion, said: "The appeal is premature. He should have noted his excepti......