Roberts v. Greensboro-Fayetteville Bus Co.
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Pike v. . Seymour (N.C. 1943)
- American Floor Machine Co. v. Dixon (N.C. 1963)
- Little v. Sheets (N.C. 1954)
- Hanks v. Norfolk & Western R. R. (N.C. 1949)
- Bell v. . Nivens (N.C. 1945)
- State v. . Parnell (N.C. 1938)
- Parrish v. . Hartman (N.C. 1937)
- State v. . Moore (N.C. 1936)
- State v. Moore (N.C. 1936)
- State v. . Hooker (N.C. 1935)
- Edwards v. . Perry (N.C. 1935)
- Weaver v. . Hampton (N.C. 1934)
- McMahan v. Southern Railway Co. (N.C. 1933)
- Pruitt v. . Wood (N.C. 1930)
- Smith v. . Smith (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
after stating the case: The order striking the defendants’ purported statement of case on appeal from the file of the papers in the cause is supported by the decision in Hicks v. Westbrook, 121 N. C., 131, 28 S. E., 188. This, however, did not entitle the plaintiff to a dismissal of the appeal. Wallace v. Salisbury, 147 N. C., 58, 60 S. E., 713. Non constat, an examination of the defendants’ purported statement of case on appeal, filed here with application for certiorari, fails to convince us that, on the defendants’ own showing, reversible error was committed on the trial of the cause. Hence, it further appearing that no error exists on the face of the record proper, the judgment will be affirmed. McNeill v. R. R., 117 N. C., 642, 23 S. E., 268. It would seem, therefore, that, irrespective of the procedural questions raised by the appeal, the same result would have followed, had the case been presented without them.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.