From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Yates v. Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Nov 1, 1918
97 S.E. 209 (N.C. 1918)

Opinion

(Filed 13 November, 1918.)

Appeal and Error — Fragmentary Appeals.

The Court suggests that fragmentary appeals be not permitted.

APPEAL by defendants from judgment of Adams, J., at April Term, 1918, of GUILFORD.

R. C. Strudwick, W. P. Bynum, Frank Nash, and J. S. Manning for plaintiffs.

Brooks, Sapp Kelly for defendant.


This case was before us last term and is reported 173 N.C. 473. The appeal was dismissed because premature, but an opinion was rendered, as is sometimes done, to facilitate a disposition of a case.

That opinion is authoritative and disposes of this case, and holds that plaintiffs cannot recover.

We suggest to the judges of the Superior Court that fragmentary and premature appeals be not permitted. It is best that all the issues be determined and a final judgment rendered before a case is brought to this Court.

Action dismissed.


Summaries of

Yates v. Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Nov 1, 1918
97 S.E. 209 (N.C. 1918)
Case details for

Yates v. Insurance Co.

Case Details

Full title:JAMES F. YATES ET AL. v. DIXIE FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Nov 1, 1918

Citations

97 S.E. 209 (N.C. 1918)
176 N.C. 401

Citing Cases

Veazey v. Durham

The decisions construing and applying this statute and connected provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure…

Johnson v. Insurance Co.

However this may be, it is manifest that the appeal is fragmentary or premature and must be dismissed under…