Leak v. Covington

ANN C. LEAK, Extrx., v. E. P. COVINGTON, Extr., Et. Als.

Leak v. Covington, 95 N.C. 193 (1886)

Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided: October 5, 1886
Judges: MerrimoN
Citations: 95 N.C. 193

Headnotes

Appeal. 1. An appeal from an interlocutory order only lies when it affects some substantial right and will work injury to the appellant if not corrected before an appeal from the final judgment. 3. Where an action wassubmittedto referees, and exceptions filed to their report, some of which the Court overruled, and retained the ease in order to try the other issues raised by the pleadings, It was held, not to be an appealable order. (Lutz v. Gline, 89 N. 0., 186; Jones v. Gall, Ibid., 188 ; Arrington v. Arrington, 91 N. 0., 301; Sicks v. Bullock, 93 N. C., 113; Welsh v. Kinsland, Ibid., 381, cited and approved).

Summary

Civil action, heard upon exceptions to the report of a referee, by MaeBae, Judge, at December Term, 1885, of Richhond Superior Court. This is an action brought by creditors against the principal defendant, as executor of the will of William L. Covington, deceased. In the course of the action, an account was ordered to be taken. The referees took and stated an account, and made report thereof, to which the defendant filed numerous exceptions. The Court heard the action in part, upon the report and exceptions, and entered an order, whereof the following is a copy: “The exceptions of the defendant are overruled, except in the particulars in which they are sustained, and the report of the referee modified in this order. “This cause is retained for the trial of issues raised by the pleadings, and for further directions.” Erom this order the defendants appealed to this Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — MerrimoN

MerrimoN, J.

(after stating the facts). It is manifest that the order appealed from is interlocutory in its nature. It does not put an end to the action ; indeed, it is expressly stated that “ it is retained for the trial of the issues raised by the pleadings, and for further directions.” The account is incidental to other questions and matters yet to be settled in the further progress of the action.

It will not destroy or seriously impair any substantial right of the defendant involved in the order, to. postpone the correction of the errors assigned, if they are such, until after the final judgment, when the defendant may appeal and have the errors now specified in the record, and any others he may possibly complain of in the further progress of the action, corrected all by one appeal.

If appeals like this should be entertained, an indefinite number of them might be taken in the same action, thus producing delay, confusion and increased costs.

*195 Generally, appeals do not lie until after final judgment. The •cases are exceptional where they lie from interlocutory orders. Actions cannot be brought to this Court for the correction of errors piecemeal — in fragments and sections. Such a-practice would be fruitful of the evils suggested, and would greatly tend to impair the order, unity and consistency of the action, while there is practically no necessity for it.

It is only when the judgment or order appealed from in the •course of the action puts an end to it, or may put an end to it, or has the effect to deprive the party complaining of some substantial right, or will seriously impair such right if the error shall not be corrected at once, and before the final hearing, that an appeal lies before final judgment. There are many decisions to this effect.

Lutz v. Cline, 89 N. C., 186 ;

Jones v. Call, Ib., 188;

Arrington v. Arrington, 91 N. C., 301 ;

Hicks v. Bullock, 93 N. C., 112 ;

Welsh v. Kinsland, Ib., 281.

The appeal must be dismissed. It is so ordered.

Dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Veazey v. City of Durham57 S.E.2d 377 (N.C. 1950)
North Carolina Consumers Power, Inc. v. Duke Power Co.206 S.E.2d 178 (N.C. 1974)
Mills v. Moore291 S.E.2d 141 (N.C. 1982)
Belk's Department Store, Inc. v. Guilford County23 S.E.2d 897 (N.C. 1943) · Dissent
Smith v. City of Goldsboro28 S.E. 479 (N.C. 1897)
Johnson v. Pilot Life Insurance1 S.E.2d 381 (N.C. 1939)

Most recent

Ford v. Mann690 S.E.2d 281 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010)
Mills v. Moore291 S.E.2d 141 (N.C. 1982)
Jennewein v. CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF WILMINGTON264 S.E.2d 802 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980)
North Carolina Consumers Power, Inc. v. Duke Power Co.206 S.E.2d 178 (N.C. 1974)
Veazey v. City of Durham57 S.E.2d 377 (N.C. 1950)
Belk's Department Store, Inc. v. Guilford County23 S.E.2d 897 (N.C. 1943) · Dissent

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Arrington v. Arrington, 91 N.C. 301 (1884)	19
	Lutz v. Cline, 89 N.C. 186 (1883)	13
	Hicks v. Gooch, 93 N.C. 112 (1885)	8

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list