Sprague v. Bond

• Decision Date: 20 December 1892
• Citation: 16 S.E. 412,111 N.C. 425
• Parties: SPRAGUE v. BOND et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

16 S.E. 412

111 N.C. 425

SPRAGUE v. BOND et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 20, 1892

Appeal from superior court, Caldwell county; J. F. GRAVES, Judge.

Action by William D. Sprague against Louisa N. Bond and others for the purchase money due on a sale of land by plaintiff to defendants. Rebecca Bond Adams was on her own motion made a party defendant, and filed an answer to the complaint. From the orders of the court permitting her to be made a party and refusing to strike out her answer, plaintiff appeals. Appeal dismissed.

A court will not, before the final determination of an action entertain an appeal from an interlocutory order making additional parties, nor review the rulings of the trial court on a motion to strike out the answer of a person so made a party, unless the refusal to grant such motion prejudices some substantial right of the person moving to strike out such answer.

M Silver and I. T. Avery, for appellant.

S. J Ervin, for appellees.

BURWELL J.

This cause was before the court at February term, 1891, (108 N.C 382, 13 S.E. Rep. 143,) and was remanded to the superior court of Caldwell county, where at fall term, 1891, Mrs. Rebecca Bond Adams was "allowed to come into court and make herself a party defendant." This was done "on motion of defendant," and the plaintiff took no exception. Thereafter, Mrs. Adams filed an answer, of which it is sufficient to say that the facts alleged therein, if found to be true, may possibly have the effect to divert the fund, for which the plaintiff is contending, from him to her. The plaintiff moved the court to strike out this answer, and to declare "that Mrs. Adams was not a proper or necessary party to this action." This motion was refused, and the plaintiff excepted. He then demurred to that answer. The demurrer was overruled, and he excepted and appealed, and thus endeavored to bring to this court for review all these rulings. They are all interlocutory, and cannot be appealed from; but all these exceptions, so noted, will be considered, if necessary, when a final judgment has been rendered. This court will not, before the final determination of an action, entertain an appeal from an interlocutory order making additional parties. Lane v. Richardson, 101 N.C. 181, 7 S.E. Rep. 710. Nor will it, before such termination of the action, review the rulings of the superior court upon a motion to strike out the answer of a person who...