Perkins v. Sykes
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Hamilton v. MORTGAGE INFORMATION SERVICES, INC. (N.C. Ct. App. 2011)
- Harbour Point Homeowners'assoc., Inc. Ex Rel. Bd. of Dir. v. Djf Enterprises (N.C. Ct. App. 2010)
- State v. Ward (N.C. Ct. App. 1980)
- Tennessee-Carolina Transportation, Inc. v. Strick Corp. (N.C. 1976)
- Currin v. Smith (N.C. 1967)
- Steele v. Moore-Flesher Hauling Company (N.C. 1963)
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
The judgment adjudicates the issue raised by the defendant’s cross-action, i.e., the title to the real and personal property used in carrying on the business of the E. P. Sykes Motor Company. It also judicially declares the right of the plaintiff to have an accounting of the partnership affairs in conformity to the prayer of the third cause of action stated in the complaint. But it leaves the first and second causes of action set out in the complaint wholly untried, and postpones the actual taking of the account of the partnership affairs to a later occasion.
For these reasons, the judgment is a partial one, not disposing of the whole case. In consequence, the appeal is fragmentary and premature, and must be dismissed. Cole v. Trust Co., 221 N.C. 249, 20 S.E. 2d 54; Garland v. Improvement Co., 184 N.C. 551, 115 S.E. 164; Cement Co. v. Phillips, 182 N.C. 437, 109 S.E. 257; Hinton v. Ins. Co., 116 N.C. *491 22, 21 S.E. 201; McIntosh on North Carolina Practice and Procedure in Civil Cases, section 676 (7).
When the whole action is tried, an appeal will lie from the final judgment upon the whole controversy. Cement Co., v. Phillips, supra.
Appeal dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.