Honeycutt v. Watkins
R. D. HONEYCUTT v. J. E. WATKINSs.
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
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Pee CuRiam :
Tbe motion to dismiss must be allowed. Tbe appeal is in forma pauperis, and tbe affidavit is fatally defective, in tbat it does not contain tbe averment required by tbe first proviso in Eevisal, sec. 597, tbat tbe appellant “is advised by counsel learned in tbe law tbat there is error, in matter of law, in tbe decision of tbe Superior Court.”
Giving bond on appeal, or tbe granting leave to appeal without bond, are jurisdictional, and, unless tbe statute is complied with, tbe appeal is not in this Court, and we can take no cognizance of tbe case, except to dismiss it from our docket. It has been always held tbat if tbe affidavit to procure an appeal in forma pauperis is defective, it is not a matter of discretion with tbe court, but the appellee can have the appeal dismissed as a matter of right. State v. Atkinson, 141 N. C., 734 ; State v. Payne, 93 N. C., 612 ; State v. Harris, 114 N. C., 831 ; State v. Bramble, 121 N. C., 603 ; State v. Gatewood, 125 N. C., 695 , and numerous cases cited in the last two cases.
Appeal dismissed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 10 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.