Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937

Parrish v. . Hartman

Parrish v. . Hartman
Supreme Court of North Carolina · Decided October 13, 1937 · Stacy
193 S.E. 18; 212 N.C. 248; 1937 N.C. LEXIS 286 (South Eastern Reporter)

Parrish v. . Hartman

Opinion of the Court

Stacy, C. J.

The order striking out defendants’ purported statement of case on appeal, because not served in time, is supported by a long line of decisions, of which S. v. Moore, 210 N. C., 686, 188 S. E., 421, may be cited as the most recent. The failure to have a “case on appeal,” however, does not ipso facto work a dismissal. Roberts v. Bus Co., 198 N. C., 779, 153 S. E., 398. Non constat that error may not appear on the face o'f the record proper. Edwards v. Perry, 208 N. C., 252, 179 S. E., 892; Wallace v. Salisbury, 147 N. C., 58, 60 S. E., 713.

Here; error does appear on the face of the record proper. The judgment is in excess of the verdict in its award of interest on the recovery. This will be modified so as to conform with the verdict as it appears of record in the Superior Court of Yancey County.

Modified and affirmed.

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