Edwards v. . Perry

May 22, 1935

Versions:208 N.C. 252

179 S.E. 892

1935 N.C. LEXIS 383

*254 Stacy, C. J.

Counsel for both sides were evidently under tbe impression tbat 22 January, 1935, was tbe last day, prescribеd by tbe court, for tbe sеrvice of appellant’s statement of case on aрpeal. Tbey deаlt witb tbe matter on tbat dаy upon ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍tbis assumption. Tbе discovery, subsequently mаde perhaps, tbаt tbe judge left tbe bench on Friday, instead of Saturday, of tbe second week of tbe term, disсlosed 21 January as tbe last day for tbe service of appеllant’s case. Hardee v. Timberlake, 159 N. C., 552, 75 S. E., 799; May v. Ins. Co., 172 N. C., 795, 90 S. E., 890; Guano Co. v. Hicks, 120 N. C., 29, 26 S. E., 650; Delafield v. Const. Co., 115 N. C., 21, 20 S. E., 167. Henсe, tbe order striking out tbе purported statement ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍of case on appeal is supported by tbe deсision in Hicks v. Westbrook, 121 N. C., 131, 28 S. E., 188.

Tbe circumstances may have justified tbe ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍appellant in аpplying for a writ of certiorari to bring up bis case, but tbis was not done. Smith v. Smith, 199 N. C., 463, 154 S. E., 737; Roberts v. Bus Co., 198 N. C., 779, 153 S. E., 398.

There being no case on appeаl, legally settled, doеs not, however, ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍entitle tbe appellеe to have tbe appeal dismissed. Roberts v. Bus Co., supra. Non constat tbat error may not appear on tbe face of tbe record proper. Wallace v. Salisbury, 147 N. C., 58, 60 S. E., 713. For tbis reason, tbe aрpellant is permitted to pursue tbe appeal, ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍even аfter bis right to a “casе on appeal” has been lost. Roberts v. Bus Co., supra.

In such case, however, unless error appear on tbe facе of tbe record proper, it is tbe usual practice to affirm tbe judgment on motion of appellee. McNeill v. R. R., 117 N. C., 642, 23 S. E., 268.

Tbe same parties were before us on another point in Edwards v. Perry, 206 N. C., 474.

Affirmed.