(after stating the case). There was no denial or explanation of these statements favorable to the appellees, and we must act upon an assumption of their truth.

*457 In our opinion, the delay in bringing up the appeal is fully and satisfactorily accounted for, and no laches can be imputed to the appellant. The papers were not in the office where they belonged, so as to he accessible, but in possession of one of the plaintiffs’ counsel, who had lost sight of the fact, and just as soon as they were returned, the defendant’s counsel proceeded to make up the case and serve a copy on the other party. What more could be done? What more could be required ? It was surely the detention of the papers that caused the delay, and the default was in the appellees’ counsel, of which he ought not now to be allowed to take advantage.

The case is clearly within the scope of the rulings in Walton v. Pearson, 83 N. C., 309; Syme v. Broughton, 84 N. C., 114; Wiley v. Linebery, 88 N. C., 68, and Greenville v. The Steamship Co., at this term, where, in consequence of the loss of the papers, a new trial was granted.

Tlie grounds upon which the motion to dismiss was made at the last term and allowed are all removed upon the facts now shown in evidence, except that the record had not been printed.

1. The appeal has been diligently prosecuted, and docketed as early as it could be done and at the proper term, under the circumstances.

2. The case was served on the appellees, or their counsel.

3. The undertaking is drawn in accordance with the order of the Court, was justified by the surety on August 11th, 1886, and was moreover tendered and accepted in open Court during the term.

The only difficulty that remains is. the failure to print. The case was not tried, and the motion to dismiss prevailed, so as to have rendered the printing useless. Indeed, exception was taken to the case to be printed, which prevailed, and intercepted the hearing upon its merits. The rule permits an appeal, dismissed for this reason, to be re-instated dur *458 ing the terra, on good cause shown for the omission, upon five days’ notice, and this will avail in suing out the writ of certiorari when good cause for the neglect is shown. Rule 2, §11, par. 7.

The application is allowed, and the clerk will issue the writ, unless counsel accept as an answer to it the record filed.