Turrentine v. Richmond & Danville RR Co.
Decision Date | 28 February 1885 |
Citation | 92 N.C. 642 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | J. M. TURRENTINE v. THE RICHMOND AND DANVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY. |
This was the defendant's appeal in the preceding case.
The trial of this cause was entered upon during the Spring Term, 1884, of the Superior Court of Mecklenburg county on March 5th, and terminated on the 12th day of the month, when, in open court, the defendant appealed, and was allowed to do so without making a deposit or giving the secured undertaking for costs. The session was concluded and the court adjourned on the 15th day of the month.
The case on appeal was prepared by the counsel of the appellant and served on the defendant's counsel on the 20th, five days thereafter. On the last mentioned day, the plaintiff's counsel also called upon the clerk at his office, and asked him to enter the judgment rendered upon the judgment-docket, and the plaintiff's appeal also. The clerk declined to do this, and thereupon the counsel filed the appellant's exceptions in the office.
Upon the hearing before the judge in order to the settling of the case on appeal, the defendant's counsel objected to the consideration of the statement of the plaintiff's case and the adjustment of the differences in order to its completion, upon the ground that the copy had not been served on him within five days “from the entry of the appeal taken,” as prescribed and limited by The Code, sec. 550.
The court deemed the objection untenable, and denying the motion, proceeded to make up the case, and the defendant appealed.
Mr. W. P. Bynum, for the plaintiff .
Messrs. D. Schenck and Reade, Busbee & Busbee, for the defendant .
SMITH, C. J. (after stating the facts).
There is no error in the ruling of the court. The proceedings had during the sitting of the court are in fieri, and a judgment rendered is subject to be set aside, modified and changed, should the judge upon a reconsideration deem it erroneous or unsatisfactory in any particular. It is not final and conclusive until the term expires and his authority ceases. This is equally true of an appeal, which is subject to the same conditions, and may be defeated by the action of the court in vacating the judgment or in so modifying it as to remove the objectionable part.
As until the term expires there is no final determination of the cause, the appeal in a legal sense is then taken and becomes absolute. Clifton v. Wynne, 81 N. C., 160; Moore v. Hinnant, 90 N. C., 163, and numerous ca...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tucker v. Satterthwaite
...92 N. C. 81; Rudasill v. Falls, Id. 222; McDonald v. Carson, 94 N. C. 497. The case at bar is very similar in its result to Turrentine v. Railroad Co., 92 N. C. 642, in which this court says: "The judgment, while the only one that could be rendered onthe findings, rests, nevertheless, upon ......
-
Zell Guano Co v. Hicks
...114 N. C. 594, 19 S. E. 667; Delafield v. Construction Co., 115 N. C. 21, 20 S. E. 167; Worthy v. Brady, 91 N. C. 265; Turrentine v. Railroad Co., 92 N. C. 642; Chamblee v. Baker, 95 N. C. 98; Walker v. Scott, 104 N. C. 481, 10 S. E. 523. The court having adjourned on October 31st, the "30 ......
-
Davison v. West Oxford Land Co.
...term (Worthy v. Brady, 91 N.C. 265), nor within 10 days of the actual rendition of the judgment, but from the adjournment ( Turrentine v. Railroad Co., 92 N.C. 642; Simmons v. Allison, 119 N.C. 556, 26 S.E. 171; Zell Guano Co. v. Hicks [as this term] 26 S.E. 650). Till adjournment, the judg......
-
Delafield v. Lewis Mercer Const. Co
...meaning the time when the judge left the court, and not the constructive expiration of the term which had been negatived. Turrentine v. Railroad Co., 92 N. C. 642; Walker v. Scott, 104 N. C. 481, 10 S. E. 523. In the latest case (Rosenthal v. Roberson, 114 N. C. 594, 19 S. E. 667) it is exp......