Tillis v. Calvine Cotton Mills, Inc.
Decision Date | 10 October 1956 |
Docket Number | No. 239,239 |
Citation | 94 S.E.2d 600,244 N.C. 587 |
Parties | William A. TILLIS, Sr. v. CALVINE COTTON MILLS, Inc., a corporation, and Leon Salkind. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Sedberry, Clayton & Sanders, Charlotte, for defendants, appellants.
G. T. Carswell, B. Irvin Boyle and James F. Justice, Charlotte, for plaintiff, appellee.
This is the third time that this case has been before this Court. In 236 N.C. 533, 73 S.E.2d 296, the defendants appealed from an order denying their motion for a bill of particulars. The appeal was dismissed. In 238 N.C. 124, 76 S.E.2d 376, plaintiff appealed from an order allowing defendants' motion to examine the plaintiff before trial. The appeal was dismissed.
The defendants' assignments of error consist of a seriatim listing of their exceptions, except that the defendants assign as error the judge 'in setting the record proper on appeal' incorporated certain portions of the record. It is plain that these incorporations are not prejudicial to the defendants. These assignments of error are typical: and
Rule 19(3) Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N.C. 544; G.S. Volume 4A, p. 157, reads: The Rule further states the Court in its discretion may refer the transcript to the clerk or to some attorney to state the exceptions according to the Rule on certain conditions.
Rule 27 1/2 of our Rules of Practice in this Court provides: 'The statement of the questions involved or presented by the appeal, is designed to enable the Court, as well as counsel, to obtain an immediate view and grasp of the nature of the controversy; and a failure to comply with this rule may result in a dismissal of the appeal.'
The Rules of this Court, governing appeals, are mandatory, and will be enforced, Pruitt v. Wood, 199 N.C. 788, 156 S.E. 126: they will be enforced ex mero motu by this Court, Pruitt v. Wood, supra; Anderson v. Wray Plumbing & Heating Co., 238 N.C. 138, 76 S.E.2d 458; Donnell v. Cox, 240 N.C. 259, 81 S.E.2d 664; Suits v. Old Equity Life Ins. Co., 241 N.C. 483, 85 S.E.2d 602.
An appellant is required to group and bring forward such of his exceptions previously made and noted in the case on appeal that he desires to preserve and present to the Court. Suits v. Old Equity Life Ins. Co., supra.
This Court said in Steelman v. Benfield (Parsons v. Benfield), 228 N.C. 651, 46 S. E.2d 829, 831: "Just what will constitute a sufficiently specific assignment must depend very largely upon the special circumstances of the particular case; but always the very error relied upon should be definitely and clearly presented, and the court not compelled to go beyond the assignment itself to learn what the question is.' * * * 'the points determinative of the appeal, shall be stated clearly and intelligibly by the assignment of errors"'.
The assignments of error are quite similar to the assignments of error in Cecil v. Snow Lumber Co., 197 N.C. 81, 147 S.E. 735, in which case Stacy, C. J., said for the Court: To the same effect see: Merritt v. Dick, 169 N.C. 244, 85 S.E. 2; Byrd v. Southerland, 186 N.C. 384, 119 S.E. 2; Eno Investment Co. v. Protective Chemicals Laboratory, 233 N.C. 294, 63 S.E. 637.
The purported assignments of error, with the exception of the assignment of error to the signing of the order for the inspection of writings, do not throw the slightest light upon the questions upon which we are asked to pass on this appeal, and do not comply with Rule 19(3) and Rule 27 1/2 of our Rules of Practice in this Court, and will not be considered. Ellis v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 241 N.C. 747, 86 S.E.2d 406; Cecil v. Snow Lumber Co., supra.
The requirement of G.S. § 8-89 that the books, papers and documents sought to be inspected contain 'evidence relating to the merits of the action' is satisfied...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Dishman
...156, 90 S.E. 117; Steelman v. Benfield, 228 N.C. 651, 46 S.E.2d 829; Allen v. Allen, 244 N.C. 446, 94 S.E.2d 325; Tillis v. Calvine Cotton Mills, 244 N.C. 587, 94 S.E.2d 600; Armstrong v. Howard, 244 N.C. 598, 94 S.E.2d 594; Lowie & Co. v. Atkins, 245 N.C. 98, 95 S.E.2d 271; Hunt v. Davis, ......
-
Bridges v. Graham
...Ellis v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 241 N.C. 747, 86 S.E.2d 406; State v. Mills, 244 N.C. 487, 94 S.E.2d 324; Tillis v. Calvine Cotton Mills, 244 N.C. 587, 94 S.E.2d 600. What the Court desires, and it would seem the least that an appellate court requires, is that assignments of error a......
-
Stanback v. Stanback
...shall grant an order for the inspection of writings upon a sufficient affidavit rests in its sound discretion. Tillis v. Cotton Mills, 244 N.C. 587, 94 S.E.2d 600 (1956); Dunlap v. Guaranty Co., 202 N.C. 651, 163 S.E. 750 (1932). However, if an order requiring inspection is based upon an in......
-
Tillis v. Calvine Cotton Mills, Inc.
...Cotton Mills, 236 N.C. 533, 73 S.E.2d 296; Tillis v. Calvine Cotton Mills, 238 N.C. 124, 76 S.E.2d 376, and Tillis v. Calvine Cotton Mills, 244 N.C. 587, 94 S.E.2d 600. At the close of the evidence Calvine moved for judgment of involuntary nonsuit. The court properly overruled the motion. P......