Ross v. Tapscott
| Decision Date | 28 February 1885 |
| Citation | 92 N.C. 576 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | SPENCE & ROSS v. J. M. TAPSCOTT. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
MOTION by the defendant to dismiss an appeal, heard at February Term, 1885, of the Supreme Court.
Messrs. Scott & Caldwell and E. C. Smith, for the plaintiffs .
Messrs. Graham & Ruffin, for the defendant .
That which purports to be the transcript of the record of an appeal in this case is so defective, that we cannot treat it as bringing the appeal, which it seems was taken in an action in the Superior Court of the county of Alamance, into this court. The papers sent up are fragmentary and confused. It does not appear, except by vague inference, that a court was held at the time and place prescribed by law, and that the Judge named presided.
Nor does it appear that any action was begun in the court. It seems that an action was begun before a justice of the peace at some time not specified, but it does not appear that he gave any judgment, or that any appeal was taken from any judgment by him to the Superior Court; nor does it appear that the latter court got any jurisdiction of the matter, that seems to have been before it in a very disorderly shape. It is said that there was a trial of issues by a jury in the Superior Court, but no record of such trial appears, nor does it appear in the record proper that any appeal was taken to this court. It appears that a judgment was given, but on what account allowed, or in what connection, we cannot see. A case upon appeal is sent up, but this is not sufficient to give the court jurisdiction.
An appeal must be constituted and brought into this court according to law. It is governed by rules of procedure, and their essential requirements must be observed. Otherwise regular authority cannot prevail. Ordinarily, it must appear in the record, with reasonable certainty, that an action or proceeding was instituted in or brought into court, from which an appeal lay; that proceedings were had, and a judgment or order given, from which an appeal lay, and that an appeal was taken from such judgment or order to this court, in order to give it jurisdiction. This is essential to the establishment of appellate relation between the court from whose judgment the appeal was taken and this court. Procedure is essential to jurisdiction, as well as to the application of principle in courts of justice, and it cannot be dispensed with. It is dangerous to ignore or disregard it. Our daily experience and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. v. White Oak Transport
...eventually to confusion and wrong, and leaves the rights and estates of many people in a more or less perilous condition. Spence v. Tapscott, 92 N.C. 576, 578 (1885). Compliance with the rules, therefore, is mandatory. State v. Hart, 361 N.C. 309, 311, 644 S.E.2d 201, 202 (2007); Reep v. Be......
-
State v. Stafford
...was held by a judge authorized *** to hold it, and at the place and time prescribed by law." State v. Butts, 91 N.C. 524. In Spence v. Tapscott, 92 N.C. 576, it was held stated in first headnote): "In order for the Supreme Court to acquire jurisdiction, it must appear in the transcript of t......
-
State v. Thompson
..."is not only discreditable to the administration of public justice, but it leads eventually to confusion and wrong[.]" Spence v. Tapscott , 92 N.C. 576, 578 (1885). Lopez will do just that, and could ultimately gut preservation requirements for all constitutional arguments.Here, Defendant d......
-
State v. Gunter
...722, 16 S.E. 409; State v. Currie, 206 N.C. 598, 174 S.E. 447; State v. McDraughon, 168 N.C. 131, 83 S.E. 181. The holding in Spence v. Tapscott, 92 N.C. 576 stated in first headnote), was that: "In order for the Supreme Court to acquire jurisdiction, it must appear in the transcript of the......