Rogers v. Brantley
| Decision Date | 07 November 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 471,471 |
| Citation | Rogers v. Brantley, 244 N.C. 744, 94 S.E.2d 896 (N.C. 1956) |
| Parties | Nancy B. ROGERS and husband, L. W. Rogers, Petitioners, v. C. Lecton BRANTLEY, Southern Bond and Mortgage Company, Inc., Jessie C. Brantley, G. B. Brantley and wife, Katherine T. Brantley, Defendants. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Taylor & Mitchell, Raleigh, for appellants.
J. L. Emanuel, Robert B. Broughton, Raleigh, for appellees.
It being made to appear to this Court in connection with motion suggesting diminution of record that this special proceeding is still pending in the Superior Court, and that no final judgment has been entered, this Court holds ex mero motu that the appeals are fragmentary and premature, and, therefore, must be dismissed,--and it is so ordered, preserving, nevertheless, exceptions of the respective parties to the said orders, staying execution of the orders, and holding in statu quo sufficient funds in the hands of...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
10 cases
-
Waters v. Qualified Personnel, Inc.
...appealability has not been raised by the parties themselves. Dickey v. Herbin, 250 N.C. 321, 108 S.E.2d 632 (1959); Rogers v. Brantley, 244 N.C. 744, 94 S.E.2d 896 (1956); Morse v. Curtis, 6 N.C.App. 620, 170 S.E.2d 491 (1969). Concluding that Judge Long's order is not appealable, we hold t......
-
Farley v. Farley
...301 N.C. at 208, 270 S.E.2d at 433 (citing Dickey v. Herbin, 250 N.C. 321, 325, 108 S.E.2d 632, 635 (1959), and Rogers v. Brantley, 244 N.C. 744, 745, 94 S.E.2d 896, 896 (1956)). A careful review of the present record compels the conclusion that Plaintiff's appeal is not properly before thi......
-
Wilkins v. Farah
...Gooding, 301 N.C. 205, 208, 270 S.E.2d 431, 433 (1980) (citing Dicky v. Herbin, 250 N.C. 321, 108 S.E.2d 632 (1959); Rogers v. Brantley, 244 N.C. 744, 94 S.E.2d 896 (1956)). Our Supreme Court has explained that[a] final judgment is one which disposes of the cause as to all the parties, leav......
-
Rioux v. Accurate Home Inspection Inc.
...Gooding, 301 N.C. 205, 208, 270 S.E.2d 431, 433 (1980) (citing Dickey v. Herbin, 250 N.C. 321, 108 S.E.2d 632 (1959); Rogers v. Brantley, 244 N.C. 744, 94 S.E.2d 896 (1956)). Our Supreme Court has stated:A final judgment is one which disposes of the cause as to all the parties, leaving noth......
Get Started for Free