Mcneeley v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 02 May 1934
• Docket Number: No. 87.,87.
• Citation: 174 S.E. 305,206 N. C. 481
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: McNEELEY . v. ANDERSON.

174 S.E. 305

206 N. C. 481

McNEELEY .

v.ANDERSON.

No. 87.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 2, 1934.

Appeal from Superior Court, Buncombe County; McElroy, Judge.

Action by J. H. McNeeley, lessee of the Reliance Coal Company, against John B. Anderson in the court of a justice of the peace. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant ap pealed to the superior court. The appeal was dismissed, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

On June 21, 1933, the plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendant for $31 with interest from April 9, 1931, in the court of a justice of the peace in Buncombe county. The defendant appealed to the superior court, and at the December term of 1933 the plaintiff moved the court ore tenus to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appeal should have been taken to the general county court and not directly to the superior court. The motion was allowed, and the appeal was dismissed. The defendant excepted and appealed.

Carter & Carter, of Asheville, for appellant.

Joseph F. Ford, Vonno L. Gudger, J. G. Merrimon, and A. S. Barnard, all of Asheville, and J. L. Jones, of Charlotte, for Buncombe County Bar Ass'n.

ADAMS, Justice.

It is not improbable that the judgment of the trial court was influenced, if not governed, by the decision in State v. Baldwin, 205 N. C. 174, 170 S. E. 645. The Baldwin Case was heard and determined in the superior court by the learned judge from whom the appeal was taken in the case at bar. There the two defendants were tried before a justice of the peace on separate warrants charging an assault, and were convicted. They appealed to the superior court, and at the hearing the cases were consolidated. The solicitor moved to dismiss the appeal, and Judge McElroy, being of opinion that the motion should be allowed, adjudged that the "appeal taken from the justice of the peace by the defendants be dismissed." The defendants excepted, and on appeal the judgment was affirmed.

The case was not argued in this court, but was submitted on printed briefs. The brief of the state was confined to the construction of one or two statutes involving the right of appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace to the recorder's court Indeed, both briefs seem to have been addressed to a question of statutory construction. No constitutional or other fundamental questions, sueh, for example, as those which are raised in the case before us, were debated or referred to in the briefs, and as a rule only propositions or exceptions pointed...