State v. Barksdale
State v. B. W. Barksdale.
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.
Though tbe defendant was convicted and appealed at July Term, 1921, of Richmond, tbe record was not docketed here, nor was any certiorari applied for, upon a filing of tbe transcript of tbe record proper on appeal at tbe fall term of this Court. Indeed, - tbe appeal was not docketed here until 11 April, 1922. Tbe motion of tbe Attorney-General to dismiss must be allowed. This has been tbe uniform practice" of tbe Court, as was held in S. v. Johnson, ante, 730, where tbe matter is fully discussed with full citation of authorities.
*786 Indeed, this has been the uniform practice in accordance with the rules of the Court in both civil and criminal cases. Among the more recent cases are Howard v. Speight, 180 N. C., 654 , citing numerous precedents. At last term the same ruling was reaffirmed in Buggy Co. v. McLamb, 182 N. C., 762; Kerr v. Drake, ibid., 765;
Tripp v. Somersett, ibid., 768, and S. v. Satterwhite, ibid., 892, in which last case the rule was again reaffirmed with full citation of authorities.
Appeal dismissed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
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.