Cecil v. . Lumber Company
Cases that cite this one
25 later published cases cite this decision.
- Jenkins v. . Castelloe (N.C. 1935)
- Phillips v. NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY (N.C. 1962)
- In re Drainage of Ahoskie Creek (N.C. 1962)
- Nichols v. McFarland (N.C. 1958)
- Bridges v. Graham (N.C. 1957)
- State v. Worley (N.C. 1957)
- Armstrong v. Howard (N.C. 1956)
- Tillis v. Calvine Cotton Mills, Inc. (N.C. 1956)
- Barnette v. Woody (N.C. 1955)
- Steelman v. . Benfield (N.C. 1948)
- State v. . Jones (N.C. 1947)
- State v. . Dilliard (N.C. 1943)
- State v. . Bittings (N.C. 1934)
- Hendrix v. . R. R. (N.C. 1932)
- In re Will of Beard (N.C. 1932)
- State v. . Lea (N.C. 1932)
- Lewellyn v. . Lewellyn (N.C. 1932)
- Baker v. . Clayton (N.C. 1932)
- Hendrix v. High Point, Thomasville & Denton Railway Co. (N.C. 1932)
- State v. Davis (N.C. 1932)
- Matthews v. . Jones (N.C. 1930)
- Matthews v. Jones (N.C. 1930)
- Poindexter v. . Call (N.C. 1935)
- Pruitt v. . Wood (N.C. 1930)
- Pruitt v. Wood (N.C. 1930)
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
Tbe municipal court of tbe city of High Point was created as a “special court for tbe trial of petit misdemeanors” by chapter '569, Public-Local Laws 1913. It was given civil jurisdiction in certain cases by chapter 699, Public-Local Laws 1927, with tbe right of either tbe plaintiff or tbe defendant in civil actions or tbe defendant in any criminal action and tbe State in certain criminal prosecutions to appeal to tbe Superior Court of Guilford County in term time “for errors assigned in matters of law in tbe same manner and under tbe same requirements as are now provided by law for appeals from tbe Superior Court to tbe Supreme Court,” etc. This means that in bearing cases on appeal from tbe municipal court of tbe city of High Point, tbe Superior Court of Guilford County sits as an appellate court, subject to review by tbe Supreme Court.
The assignments of error, appearing on tbe present record, are not sufficiently definite to enable tbe court to understand what questions are sought to be presented, without a voyage of discovery through tbe record. Sturtevant v. Cotton Mills, 171 N. C., 119, 87 S. E., 992. Hence, tbe motion of plaintiffs to dismiss tbe appeal and to affirm tbe judgment for failure to comply with Rule 19, sec. 3, would seem to be well founded. Porter v. Lumber Co., 164 N. C., 396, 80 S. E., 443.
We have examined tbe record, however, and find no reversible error. Thresher Co. v. Thomas, 170 N. C., 680, 87 S. E., 327.
Appeal dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.