From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boykin v. Wright; Pass v. Shine

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Sep 1, 1893
18 S.E. 212 (N.C. 1893)

Summary

In Boykin v. Wright, 11 La. Ann. 535, it seems to have been taken for granted that a power to sell all the principal's lands in a certain parish was sufficient. It has been held in California and Kansas that 'an authority to sell all of the land belonging to the principal is good without a particular description of the property.

Summary of this case from Resweber v. Daspit

Opinion

September Term, 1893

Time of Docketing Appeal — Motion to dismiss — Accepting Service of Case no Waiver of Right to Dismiss.

Where a judgment was rendered in a Superior Court at February Term, 1892, and appellee agreed that appellant might have "thirty days to perfect appeal," and upon the "case" there was an indorsement as follows, "Service accepted 31 December 1892," and the appeal was docketed in March, 1893: Held, that the indorsement of acceptance of service of the case does not, in itself, constitute a waiver of appellee's right to have the appeal dismissed because not docketed within the prescribed time.

This was a motion to dismiss the appeal.

W. R. Allen for plaintiffs.

R. O. Burton for defendant.


The judgment was rendered at February Term, 1892, of the Superior Court. The appeal was docketed in this Court 13 March, 1893. It appears in the record that the appellee agreed that the appellant might have "thirty days to perfect appeal." Upon "the case" is this indorsement: "Service accepted 31 December, 1892", and this is signed by counsel who represented plaintiffs in the court below.

We do not think this indorsement, standing alone, constitutes in any degree a waiver of the appellee's right to insist that the appeal shall be dismissed because not docketed here within the prescribed time. His motion to dismiss must be allowed.

Appeal dismissed.

(284)


Summaries of

Boykin v. Wright; Pass v. Shine

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Sep 1, 1893
18 S.E. 212 (N.C. 1893)

In Boykin v. Wright, 11 La. Ann. 535, it seems to have been taken for granted that a power to sell all the principal's lands in a certain parish was sufficient. It has been held in California and Kansas that 'an authority to sell all of the land belonging to the principal is good without a particular description of the property.

Summary of this case from Resweber v. Daspit
Case details for

Boykin v. Wright; Pass v. Shine

Case Details

Full title:BOYKIN, CARMER CO. v. JOHN C. WRIGHT

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Sep 1, 1893

Citations

18 S.E. 212 (N.C. 1893)
113 N.C. 283

Citing Cases

Resweber v. Daspit

The objection that the real estate was not specially described is without force. In Boykin v. Wright, 11 La.…

Neustadt v. Coline Oil Co.

A number of states wherein the rule has been modified by statute are set out at page 2913 of the same work in…