McNeill v. Raleigh & Augusta Air Line Railroad
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Thurston v. Salisbury Zoning Board of Adjustment (N.C. Ct. App. 1974)
- In re the Appeal of Harris (N.C. 1968)
- State v. Daniels (N.C. 1949)
- State v. . Parnell (N.C. 1938)
- Edwards v. . Perry (N.C. 1935)
- Roberts v. Greensboro-Fayetteville Bus Co. (N.C. 1930)
- Smith v. . Smith (N.C. 1930)
- Pike v. . Seymour (N.C. 1943)
- State v. . Humphrey (N.C. 1923)
- State v. . Hill (N.C. 1900)
- Hicks v. . Westbrook (N.C. 1897)
- Barrus v. Wilmington & Weldon Railroad (N.C. 1897)
- Smith v. . Smith (N.C. 1896)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Notice of appeal was properly given and in apt time, hence a motion to dismiss the appeal would not lie and in fact was not made. The appellant’s case on appeal, unless service was accepted, could only be served by an officer. Forte v. Boone, 114 N. C., 176; Allen v. Strickland, 100 N. C., 225; State v. Johnson, 109 N. C., 852; State v. Price, 110 N. C., 599. The failure of service in due time, if it is made to appear, could not be cured even by the Judge’s settling tbe case (Forte v. Boone, supra) and when the case is not settled by the Judge, it must appear affirmatively that the case or counter-case was legally served and in due time to avail the party relying upon it. M'f'g Co. v. Simmons, 97 N. C., 89; Peebles v. Braswell, 107 N. C., 68; Howell v. Jones, 109 N. C., 102. Tbe attempted service by the clerk was a nullity (Cummings v. Hoffman, 113 N. C., 267) as was also the service by a proper officer after the time limited hy law. Rosenthal v. Roberson, 114 N. C., 594; Cummings v. Hoffman, supra. Had there been counter-affidavits that in fact there had been service by a proper officer in due time, the case might be continued that, on motion below, the Judge should find and certify the facts, as in Walker v. Scott, 102 N. C., 487. Such is not the case here, but simply an attempted service within the proper time-by *644 one not authorized to make it, and then service by a proper officer but after the time limited for service had expired. Both these acts being null and of no effect, and there being nothing to excuse the laches, as in Watkins v. Railroad 116, N. C., 961, there is nothing before us except the record proper. On inspection we find no error therein and must affirm the judgment. Lyman v. Ramseur, 113 N. C., 503.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.