From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Allen v. Hammond

Supreme Court of North Carolina
May 1, 1898
30 S.E. 16 (N.C. 1898)

Opinion

(Decided 3 May, 1898.)

Appeal — Practice — Incomplete Record.

Where the consideration of the complaint is essential to the determination of the questions involved on appeal and the complaint is not in the record on appeal, and appellant makes no motion for a certiorari to perfect the record, the appeal will be dismissed.

ACTION, tried at Fall Term, 1897, of MADISON, before Norwood, J. From a judgment for the defendant the plaintiff appealed. The record on appeal does not contain the complaint. In this Court the defendant (appellee) moved to dismiss.

J. M. Gudger, Jr., for defendant. (755)

No counsel contra.


There is no complaint, answer or summons sent up, only the case on appeal; and the complaint is essential to be considered in passing on this controversy. Defects in the transcript are often remedied by certiorari when there is no laches on the part of the appellant, and sometime by the Court's sending down a certiorari ex mero motu to supply merely formal parts of the transcript. S. v. Preston, 104 N.C. 733; S. v. Beal, 119 N.C. 809; S. v. Daniel, 121 N.C. 574. But here the defect is in a material respect and no motion for certiorari has been made by the appellant. He has not perfected his record on appeal and not having paid due attention to it, let the motion to dismiss be entered.

Appeal dismissed.

Cited: Finch v. Strickland, 130 N.C. 46.


Summaries of

Allen v. Hammond

Supreme Court of North Carolina
May 1, 1898
30 S.E. 16 (N.C. 1898)
Case details for

Allen v. Hammond

Case Details

Full title:D. W. ALLEN v. F. M. HAMMOND

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: May 1, 1898

Citations

30 S.E. 16 (N.C. 1898)
122 N.C. 754

Citing Cases

Thrush v. Thrush

On review here, therefore, this Court, in the absence of the complaint, cannot have before it all the…

Shields v. Smith

Affirmed. Cited: Hawkins v. Carpenter, 85 N.C. 482; Morgan v. Bunting, 86 N.C. 66; Gidney v. Moore, Ib., 484;…