Farr v. Babcock Lumber Co.
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Johnson v. Catlett (N.C. 1957)
- Bradford Electric Light Co. v. Clapper (1st Cir. 1931)
- North Carolina Consumers Power, Inc. v. Duke Power Co. (N.C. 1974)
- Utilities Com. v. . R. R. (N.C. 1944)
- State ex rel. North Carolina Utilities Commission v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad (N.C. 1944)
- Belk's Department Store, Inc. v. . Guilford County (N.C. 1943)
- Johnson v. Pilot Life Insurance (N.C. 1939)
- Reaves v. Earle-Chesterfield Mill Co. (N.C. 1939)
- Meekins v. Coastal Game Preserves (N.C. 1937)
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
His Honor beld that the court had no jurisdiction of the first cause of action, and retained the second, third, and fourth causes for trial by jury. The defendant, thereupon excepted and appealed. The order appealed from was not final, or of such character as to deprive the defendant of any substantial right, and fot this reason the appeal was premature. The defendant can preserve its exception until a final judgment is_ rendered. In numerous cases this Court has held that a premature or fragmentary appeal will not be considered. Hailey v. Gray, 93 N. C., 196; Lane v. Richardson, 101 N. C., 182; Mfg. Co. v. Buxton, 105 N. C., 74; Emry v. Parker, 111 N. C., 261; R. R. v. King, 125 N. C., 454.
We are requested, however, to review so much of the judgment as retains for trial the second, third, and fourth causes of action. As now advised, especially in the absence of an opposing interpretation by the Supreme Court of Tennessee, we are of opinion that the sections of the Workmen’s Compensation Act cited and relied on by the defendant do not purport to interfere with the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Graham as to the second, third, and fourth causes of action stated in the complaint, and that there was no error in his Honor’s order that 'these causes be retained for trial.
Appeal dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.