Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1898

Russell v. . Hill

Russell v. . Hill
Supreme Court of North Carolina · Decided May 3, 1898 · PER CURIAM.
30 S.E. 27; 122 N.C. 772; 1898 N.C. LEXIS 347 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Mr. Q. S. Ferguson, for plaintiff., Mr. JR. L. Leathenvood, for defendants, (appellants.)

Russell v. . Hill

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

When there is a conflict between the “case on appeal” stated by the Judge and the record proper, the latter governs. Cases cited in Clark’s- Code (2nd Ed.), p. 579. But here the conflict is in the record itself. Upon the issues sent up in the record the second issue is answered “No,” while in the judgment it is recited that it had been answered “ Yes.” If this were a mere clerical error in copying it could he cured by a certiorari or by amendment here, State v. Beal, 119 N. C., 809; State v. Preston, 104 N. C., 733; but counsel concur that the conflict is in the original record below. Such being the case, the only remedy is by a new trial.

New trial.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.