State Ex Rel. Pipkin v. McArtan

Supreme Court of North Carolina
State Ex Rel. Pipkin v. McArtan, 29 S.E. 334 (N.C. 1898)
122 N.C. 194; 1898 N.C. LEXIS 223
PER CURIAM.

State Ex Rel. Pipkin v. McArtan

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

The statute having fixed the time allowed for serving notice of appeal, and cases on appeal and counter cases, the Judge cannot extend time. Woodworking Co v. Southwick, 119 N. C , 611; Hemphill v. Morrison, 112 N. C., 757. It can only be done by consent. Here, counsel on one side swear that consent was given, and the other side deny this, and the alleged agreement must be disregarded. Rule 39; Sondley v. Asheville, 112 N. C., 694; Graham v. Edwards, 114 N. C., 228. The entry on the docket, “20 days,” means noth *195 ing in itself, but if it was an entry the Court was authorized to make, the Judge at the next term could draw it out at greater length to make the record speak the truth, hut as the only validity it has is as the alleged agreement of counsel, and the context whether it was made hy counsel, and its meaning, could only he determined upon conflicting affidavits of counsel, it must he disregarded. Consent to extension of time is not shown. There is hence no valid case on appeal, and there being no error on the face of the record proper, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
State Ex Rel J. W. PIPKIN Et Al v. C. McARTAN Et Al
Cited By
3 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Appeal — Service of Case on Appeal — Practice—Buie of Court — Agreement of Counsel — Entry on Record. 1. As the time for service of case on appeal is fixed by statute, it cannot-be extended by the trial judge or otherwise except by consent. 2. Stipulations as to extension of time for service of case on appeal must be entered on the record'or be contained in some writing; otherwise, if an alleged agreement for such extension is denied it will not be considered by this Court. 3. An entry on the Superior Court docket of “20 days” is meaningless in itself but, if it was an entry which the Court was authorized to make, the Judge could at a subsequent term draw it out at greater length so as to make the record speak the truth.