Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957

Aycock v. Richardson

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Decided November 20, 1957 · Per Curiam

100 S.E.2d 379; 247 N.C. 233; 1957 N.C. LEXIS 659 (South Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Wolfe v. North Carolina (Supreme Court of the United States 1960)
Booth v. Utica Mutual Insurance (N.C. 1983)
Housing Authority of the Raleigh v. Truesdale (N.C. Ct. App. 1979)
Brooks v. Matthews (N.C. Ct. App. 1976)
Giannitrapani v. Duke University (N.C. Ct. App. 1976)
State Ex Rel. Moore v. Doe (N.C. Ct. App. 1973)
Dunn v. North Carolina State Highway Commission (N.C. Ct. App. 1968)
Teague v. Teague (N.C. 1966)
Oliver v. Williams (N.C. 1966)
JIM WALTER CORPORATION v. Gilliam (N.C. 1963)
McBride Ex Rel. McBride v. North Carolina State Board of Education (N.C. 1962)

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

Per Curiam.

It is provided by statute, G.S. 1-279, that the appeal from a judgment rendered in term must be taken within ten days after its rendition, unless the record shows an appeal taken at the trial, which is sufficient. And it is provided by statute, G.S. 1-280, that within the time prescribed in G.S. 1-279 the appellant shall cause his appeal to be entered by the Clerk on the judgment docket and notice thereof to be given to the adverse party unless the record shows an appeal taken or prayed at the trial, which is sufficient.

_ Interpreting these two statutes the Court holds the provisions are jurisdictional, and unless complied with this Court acquires no jurisdiction of the appeal, and must dismiss it. See Mason v. Commrs. of Moore, 229 N.C. 626, 51 S.E. 2d, 6, and cases cited.

Moreover, the Clerk of this Court, at its direction, has obtained from Clerk of Superior Court of Cabarrus County certificate in which he certifies that: “I have examined the minutes in. the above entitled action; that said minutes contain no entries of appeal either by the plaintiff or by the defendant.”

Nevertheless, in case in hand, the Court has reviewed the record and purported case on appeal, and finds no prejudicial error. The case appears to have been fairly and fully presented to the *235 jury, and the jury has found that neither plaintiff nor defendants were guilty of negligence proximately causing the alleged injuries and damage.

Appeal dismissed.

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