City of Greensboro v. McAdoo
The CITY OF GREENSBORO v. W. D. McADOO
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam:
The defendants except— 1. Because the Judge did not hold that the action and proceedings of the plaintiff in the premises were without authority of law.
2. That the action of the jury was not in accordance with the law.
This conveys no information wherein the action and proceedings of the city were without authority of law, whether in the want of the power of local assessments or otherwise; nor wherein the action of the jury was not in accordance with the law; and in both particulars it cannot be seen definitely how or wherein the Judge erred, and the whole matter is left to conjecture. In assigning error, the appellant should point out specifically and distinctly wherein it consists, and not leave the Court to grope through the entire transcript. When this is not done, the Court will affirm the judgment below.
Brumble v. Brown, 71 N. C., 513 ;
Chasteen v. Martin, 84 N. C., 391 ;
Moore v. Hill, 85 N. C., 218 ;
Strickland v. Draughan, 88 N. C., 315 ;
Arrington v. Goodrich, 95 N. C., 462 . There being no errors on the face of the record proper, and no others being legally and properly assigned, the judgment must be Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.