TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Chadwick v. Norfolk-Southern Railway Co.

W. S. CHADWICK v. NORFOLK-SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY Et Als.

Chadwick v. Norfolk-Southern Ry. Co., 75 S.E. 852 (N.C. 1912)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 25, 1912
Judges
Pee
Citations
75 S.E. 852161 N.C. 2091912 N.C. LEXIS 392
Headnotes
Appeal and Error — Processioning Lands — Fragmentary Appeal — Order Remanding Cause to Clerk — Practice. An appeal from tlie order of the Superior Court judge reversing the judgment of the clerk of the court and remanding the cause to hiim to the end! that the proper order for a survey be made in proceedings to procession lands, under Revisal, sec. 326, is premature, and a motion to dismiss should be allowed; exceptions should have been taken to the order and the final result appealed from.
Summary
Appeal from an order of Foushee, J., heard at chambers, 11 March, 1912, from Cabteret. This is a processioning proceeding.

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

Opinion of the Court — Pee

Pee. Curiam.

The plaintiff moves to dismiss this appeal in this Court upon the ground that the same is premature. The clerk of the Superior Court dismissed the proceedings.

*210 Upon appeal at chambers,, the judge presiding in tbe Third Judicial District reversed the. judgment of the clerk and remanded the same to him, to the end that the proper order be made of survey, etc., in accordance with the statute. Revisal, 326.

We are of opinion that the motion to dismiss this appeal because it is premature should be allowed. It was the duty of the defendant to have noted every exception and let the cause proceed to the hearing under the statute, and then, if dissatisfied with the final result, upon exceptions properly taken, the cause can be heard in the Superior Court, and thence by appeal to this Court.

Appeal dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1919: 11921: 11923: 119192026peak 1919 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Penn-Allen Cement Co. v. Phillips109 S.E. 257 (N.C. 1921)
  2. State ex rel. Corporation Commission v. Cannon Manufacturing Co.116 S.E. 178 (N.C. 1923)
  3. Williams v. Bailey97 S.E. 721 (N.C. 1919) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. State ex rel. Corporation Commission v. Cannon Manufacturing Co.116 S.E. 178 (N.C. 1923)
  2. Penn-Allen Cement Co. v. Phillips109 S.E. 257 (N.C. 1921)
  3. Williams v. Bailey97 S.E. 721 (N.C. 1919) · 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 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