From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pipkin v. Green

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 1, 1893
17 S.E. 534 (N.C. 1893)

Opinion

(February Term, 1893.)

Dismissal of Appeal — Reinstatement — Laches.

1. A motion to reinstate an appeal dismissed for failure to print must be made at the same term (Rule 30 of the Supreme Court), and will only then be allowed for good cause shown.

2. A motion to reinstate an appeal dismissed for failure to docket the record at the first term of this Court after the trial below is fatally defective, where it does not show that the delay was without laches on the part of the appellant.

MOTION to reinstate the appeal which had been previously dismissed.

W. E. Murchison for plaintiff.

E. C. Smith for defendant.


This is a motion made at September Term, 1892, to reinstate the appeal which had been dismissed at February Term, 1892 ( 110 N.C. 462), for failure to print, and also for failure to docket at the proper term. The motion to reinstate, when the dismissal is for failure to print, must be made at the same term (Rule 30 of the Supreme Court), and will only then be allowed "for good cause shown." The motion, therefore, comes too late, and must be denied.

The motion, indeed, does not show good cause. Stephens v. Koonce, 106 N.C. 255, is in point. Furthermore, notice of the motion to reinstate was not given as required by Rule 30.

This renders it unnecessary to consider the other ground of dismissal — for failure to docket appeal at the next term of the Court after the trial below. We will note, however, that if this was caused by the delay of the judge to settle the case in time, the appellant should have docketed the record proper and have asked for a certiorari for the (356) "case" at such first term thereafter. Pittman v. Kimberly, 92 N.C. 562; Porter v. R. R., 106 N.C. 478. Besides, as a motion to reinstate the appeal dismissed on this ground, it is fatally defective for failure to show that the delay to docket the appeal was without laches on the part of the appellant. Simmons v. Andrews, 106 N.C. 201.

MOTION DENIED.

Cited: Graham v. Edwards, 114 N.C. 230; S. v. Freeman, ib., 873; Carter v. Long, 116 N.C. 47; Guano Co. v. Hicks, 120 N.C. 30; Burrell v. Hughes, ib., 278; Parker v. R. R., 121 N.C. 504; Calvert v. Carstarphen, 133 N.C. 26; Howard v. Speight, 180 N.C. 654.


Summaries of

Pipkin v. Green

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 1, 1893
17 S.E. 534 (N.C. 1893)
Case details for

Pipkin v. Green

Case Details

Full title:J. W. PIPKIN v. J. A. GREEN, SHERIFF

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Feb 1, 1893

Citations

17 S.E. 534 (N.C. 1893)
112 N.C. 355

Citing Cases

Stephens v. Koonce

Motion denied. Cited: Edwards v. Henderson, 109 N.C. 84; Pipkin v. Green, 112 N.C. 355; Turner v. Tate,…

State v. Freeman

Pittman v. Kimberly, supra, is exactly in point, and has often been cited and approved. Stephens v. Koonce,…