Thomas v. Carteret County
| Decision Date | 29 September 1920 |
| Docket Number | 176. |
| Citation | 104 S.E. 75,180 N.C. 109 |
| Parties | THOMAS ET UX. v. CARTERET COUNTY ET AL. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Carteret County; Connor, Judge.
Action by T. M. Thomas and wife against the County of Carteret and others. From an order denying defendants' motions for judgment on the verdict, setting aside the verdict as to one issue, and continuing the cause for the trial of such further issues as may be necessary, the defendants appeal. Appeal dismissed, and cause remanded.
An order by the trial court, denying defendants' motions for judgment on the special verdict, setting aside the verdict on one issue, and continuing the cause for the trial of such further issues as may be necessary to determine the rights of the parties, with leave to file amended pleadings, is not a final judgment, and an appeal therefrom will be dismissed ex mero motu.
Civil action, tried upon these issues:
(1) In what amount, if any, is Thomas Thomas, trustee of the courthouse bond sinking fund, indebted to Carteret county?
Answer $13,236.49, with interest.
(2) What sum, if any, is Carteret county entitled to recover of the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, as surety for Thomas Thomas, treasurer of Carteret county?
Answer Nothing.
(3) What sum, if any, is Carteret county entitled to recover of Mace, administrator of Alonzo Thomas, deceased, on the bond of Thomas Thomas, trustee.
Answer $5,000.
(4) Were the note and mortgage of T. M. Thomas and wife, Laura executed to Thomas Thomas, and assigned to Carteret county taken and accepted with the understanding and agreement that the same should be used only after the other securities held by the county for Thomas Thomas, trustee, had been exhausted, as alleged in the complaint?
Answer: No.
(5) What sum, if any, is Carteret county entitled to recover of T. M. Thomas and wife on account of the note for $13,500, secured by mortgage assigned to said county by Thomas Thomas?
Answer: ______.
There was motion by plaintiff to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. Motion refused. On plaintiff's motion, the court set aside the verdict on fourth issue.
Defendant Mace, administrator, moves judgment of the court on the verdict. Motion denied. Exception. Judgment tendered by defendant, as appears in the record, refused. Exception. Verdict as to fourth issue set aside. Defendant excepts, and again moves for judgment on the verdict. Denied. Exception. Defendant United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company moves judgment on the verdict. Denied. Exception. Judgment tendered refused. Exception.
Both named defendants appeal from refusal of judgment on verdict. Notice of appeal in open court. Appeal bond fixed at $50. Whereupon the following order was entered by the court at June term, 1920:
This cause coming on to be heard upon the verdict rendered by the jury, the plaintiffs move his honor to set aside the verdict for errors to be assigned. Motion is denied, and plaintiffs except. The plaintiffs move that the verdict be set aside on the fourth issue. The motion is allowed, and the verdict is set aside as to the fourth issue, in the discretion of the court. This cause is continued, to the end that such further issues may be tried as may be necessary to determine the rights of the parties, with leave to the plaintiffs to file within 30 days any reply and further pleadings as they may deem necessary, and to the defendants to file such further pleadings as they may desire within 60 days thereafter. Defendants Mace, administrator, and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company excepted to said order, and again move for judgment on the verdict. Motion denied. D...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Belk's Dept. Store v. Guilford County
... ... In the ... first place, the appeal is premature and should be dismissed ... ex mero motu. Thomas v. Carteret County, 180 N.C ... 109, 104 S.E. 75. No appeal lies from a refusal to dismiss an ... action or proceeding. Goldsboro v. Holmes, ... ...
-
Thomas v. Carteret County
...against Carteret County and others. From the judgment, plaintiffs and defendant Mace appeal. Modified and affirmed. See, also, 180 N.C. 109, 104 S.E. 75. J., dissenting. In action to have determined the extent of liability on a note and mortgage executed to plaintiffs' nephew and by him tur......
-
Johnson v. Pilot Life Ins. Co.
... ... does not come within the purview of the statute, C.S. § 638, ... permitting appeals. Thomas v. Carteret, 180 N.C ... 109, 104 S.E. 75; Chambers v. Seaboard Air Line R ... Co., 172 N.C ... ...
-
Hawley v. Powell
...the first issue, and these may be presented on appeal from the final judgment, if, indeed, an appeal is taken therefrom. Thomas v. Carteret, 180 N.C. 109, 104 S.E. 75. judgment has yet been entered in the cause. Hence, the present appeal is premature, and must be dismissed. Strayhorn v. Ban......