TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cox v. Pruett

W. E. COX Et Al. v. MARTIN PRUETT Et Al.

Cox v. Pruett, 13 S.E. 917 (N.C. 1891)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 5, 1891
Judges
MerrimoN
Citations
13 S.E. 917109 N.C. 487
Headnotes
Appeal — Certiorari. The Supreme Court will not grant the writ of certiorari as a substitute for an appeal where the petition fails to show that the appellant took an appeal, and caused the proper entries and notice thereof to be given within ten days after the rendition of the judgment or of notice thereof; the simple allegation in the petition that appellant within the ten days caused a notice of appeal to be placed in the hands of the Sheriff, and that it was served, is not sufficient.
Summary
Application for certiorari.

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, C. J.:

This is an application for the writ of certiorari as a substitute for an appeal lost.

The petition alleges that within ten days next after the petitioners had notice of the order complained of, they placed a notice of an appeal in the hands of the Sheriff to be served on the plaintiffs in the action, and that it was served. But it is not alleged, nor does it at all appear, that the petitioners took an appeal within ten days after notice, or within ten days after the rendition of such order, nor is it alleged, nor does it appear; that within that time the appellant caused his appeal to be entered by the Clerk on the Judgment Docket and notice thereof to be given to the adverse party, as required by the statute (The Code, §550). On the contrary, it appears by the affidavit of the Clerk that no notice of appeal ever went to his office. It is not alleged, noi; does it appear, that the adverse party in any way prevented the petitioners from taking an appeal within the time allowed by law. It does not appear that the petitioners ever took an appeal, nor is any proper reason assigned why they did not or could not. Clearly, the petitioners are not entitled to have their prayer granted.

Petition dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list