From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Neal v. Land Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 1, 1893
17 S.E. 538 (N.C. 1893)

Opinion

(February Term, 1893.)

Dismissal of Appeal — Motion to Reinstate — Neglect of Counsel.

Where an appeal has been dismissed for failure to print the record, a motion to reinstate will not be allowed on the ground that such failure was caused by the neglect of counsel, for the neglect of counsel is the neglect of the party himself and does not excuse.

The appeal in this case having, on motion, been dismissed for failure to print the record, the appellant, after notice given, moved to reinstate the same.

J. F. Morphew for plaintiff.

P. J. Sinclair for defendant.


The additional explanatory affidavit of the clerk does not alter the case. The motion to reinstate must be denied. The neglect of counsel to have the record printed is the neglect of the party himself and does not excuse. Edwards v. Henderson, 109 N.C. 83, and numerous cases there cited. In that case it is said: "Appellants might as well fail to send up the transcript as not to have it in a condition to be heard by failing to have the `case and exceptions' printed."

MOTION DENIED.

Cited: Dunn v. Underwood, 116 N.C. 525; Calvert v. Carstarphen, 133 N.C. 26; Holland v. R. R., 137 N.C. 371, 380; Seawell v. Lumber Co., 172 N.C. 325.

(842)


Summaries of

Neal v. Land Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 1, 1893
17 S.E. 538 (N.C. 1893)
Case details for

Neal v. Land Co.

Case Details

Full title:LIZZIE C. NEAL v. OLD NORTH STATE LAND COMPANY

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Feb 1, 1893

Citations

17 S.E. 538 (N.C. 1893)
112 N.C. 841

Citing Cases

Seawell v. Lumber Co.

It is equally well settled that if the attorney is acting outside of his employment as attorney, and is…

Holland v. R. R

There is no dispute about the truth of that evidence, and but one conclusion can be drawn from it in reason.…