From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harding v. Hart

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 1, 1896
118 N.C. 839 (N.C. 1896)

Opinion

(February Term, 1896.)

INTERLOCUTORY ORDER — PRACTICE — PREMATURE APPEAL.

Upon a reference, under The Code, the parties agreed that the referees should determine the case as arbitrators, but before the close of the evidence, and before the award was made, the defendants served notice, in writing, revoking the agreement to arbitrate. The referees, nevertheless, ignoring the notice, made their award, to which defendants excepted. The court set aside the award, and plaintiffs appealed: Held, that the order was only interlocutory and the appeal was premature; the plaintiffs should have excepted and had their exceptions noted on the record, so that the whole matter might be brought up on appeal from the final judgment.

MOTION to set aside an award of arbitrators, before Robinson, J., at December Term, 1895, of BUNCOMBE.

W. W. Jones and V. S. Lusk for plaintiffs.

Moore Moore and Shepherd Busbee for defendants.


His Honor granted the motion, and plaintiffs appealed.


The agreement to submit to arbitration was made before the referees, who had been appointed by the court, for the purpose of stating an account between the parties. Before the testimony had been concluded, the defendants served a notice upon the arbitrators appointed by themselves — the same persons who had been appointed referees by the court — in which notice they said that they "do now and hereby revoke and annul the agreement and submission heretofore made to arbitrate the matters in dispute in this (840) case between them and the plaintiffs, and ask that the matter be determined by you under the order of court, as referees." The report was made to the court, and the same was set aside and the matters rereferred. An order was also made for new parties and the taking of additional testimony. The plaintiffs appealed.

The appeal is premature. The order of the court was only interlocutory. Plaintiffs should have assigned errors and exceptions and had the same noted in the record, so that the whole might be brought up by an appeal from the final judgment. Hailey v. Gray, 93 N.C. 195; Blackwell v. McCaine, 105 N.C. 460; Warren v. Stancil, 117 N.C. 112.

Appeal Dismissed.


Summaries of

Harding v. Hart

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 1, 1896
118 N.C. 839 (N.C. 1896)
Case details for

Harding v. Hart

Case Details

Full title:MILTON HARDING ET AL. v. JOHN HART ET AL

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Feb 1, 1896

Citations

118 N.C. 839 (N.C. 1896)
24 S.E. 668

Citing Cases

Donahoo v. Home of the Good Shepherd of Omaha, Inc.

A basic rule is that in determining whether a sale is by the acre or in gross, the intention of the parties…

Brandon v. Hines

At common law courts often seem to have held nonappealable an order vacating an award rendered in the course…