History
  • No items yet
midpage
Davis v. . Marshall
9 N.C. 59
N.C.
1822
Check Treatment

It seems that the appellant made no effort either to bring up the appeal himself or cause it to be done by any other person. He depended upon the clerk of the county court, he says, to bring it up, because (as the clerk admits) he had been in the habit of bringing up all appeals taken from the county court, but omitted through forgetfulness to bring up this one. Other instances of forgetfulness like this, to which the human character is liable, particularly as a good deal might be depending upon it, should have taught the appellant the necessity of attending to the business himself. In cases of such negligence this Court cannot interfere and, however much it may regret it, it must say that the writ of certiorari cannot be granted.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed.

Cited: Collins v. Nall, 14 N.C. 226; Hester v. Hester, 20 N.C. 456;Winborne v. Byrd, 92 N.C. 9.

(61)

Case Details

Case Name: Davis v. . Marshall
Court Name: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Date Published: Jun 5, 1822
Citation: 9 N.C. 59
Court Abbreviation: N.C.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.