Schwarberg v. Howard, (No. 429.)
| Decision Date | 24 April 1929 |
| Docket Number | (No. 429.) |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | SCHWARBERG et al. v. HOWARD et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Moore County; Stack, Judge.
Action by Miss Mary Schwarberg and others against E. M. Howard and others. Motions by defendants for dismissal for want of proper service and for removal of action to another county were overruled, and defendants appeal. Appeal dismissed.
J. A. D. Parrish, of Norfolk, Va., and L. B. Clegg, of Carthage, for appellants.
Johnson & Johnson, of Aberdeen, for appellees.
It appears from the statement of case on appeal, which constitutes the entire record sent to this court, that summons in an action entitled as above was issued out of the superior court of Moore county March 29, 1928, and that thereafter, July 25, 1928, two of the defendants, E. M.Howard and United States Land Company, through their counsel, entered a special appearance and move: First, that the action be dismissed for want of proper service as to them; and, second, that the action be moved to Carteretcounty for trial, if not dismissed. Both motions were overruled, and the defendants appeal. The complaint is not sent up as a part of the record as required in all cases, and we are not able to determine the nature and character of the action.
It is provided by rule 19, section 1, of the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, that "the pleadings on which the case is tried, the issues, and the judgment appealed from shall be a part of the transcript in all cases." 192 N. C. 847, 81 S. E. ix. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed for failure to comply with the rules, or to send up the necessary parts of the record proper. State v. McDraughon, 168 N. C. 131, 83 S. E. 181; dossier v. Asheville, 138 N. C. 482, 51 S. E. 53; Sigman v. R, R., 135 N. C. 181, 47 S. E. 420; Jones v. Hoggard, 107 N. C. 349, 12 S. E. 286.
As to whether the defendants did not waive their special appearance and enter a general appearance by moving for change of venue as a matter of right, see Motor Co. v. Reaves, 184 N. C. 260, 114 S. E. 175.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Pruitt v. Wood
-
Allen v. Allen
...Waters v. Waters, 199 N.C. 667, 155 S.E. 564; Plott Co. v. H. K. Ferguson Construction Co., 198 N.C. 782, 153 S.E. 396; Schwarberg v. Howard, 197 N.C. 126, 147 S.E. 741. 'Failure to send up necessary parts of the record proper has uniformly resulted in dismissal of the appeal.' Goodman v. G......
-
Schwarberg v. Howard
...147 S.E. 741 197 N.C. 126 SCHWARBERG et al. v. HOWARD et al. No. 429.Supreme Court of North CarolinaApril 24, Appeal from Superior Court, Moore County; Stack, Judge. Action by Miss Mary Schwarberg and others against E. M. Howard and others. Motions by defendants for dismissal for want of pr......
- Gant v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. Of Chattanooga