23 N.C. 63 | N.C. | 1840
There is but one point in the case proper for the consideration of this Court. That is on the motion of Gatling to dismiss the appeal because no appeal lies in such a case. On that question our opinion differs from that of the judge of the Superior Court, and is that the appeal ought to have been dismissed.
Before the act of 1813, 1 Rev. Stat., ch. 104, secs. 2, 3, there was no appeal from an order of the county court refusing or ordering the laying out a public road. Hawkins v. Randolph,
Thus the question stands on the "act concerning roads." we think the "act concerning appeals," 1 Rev. Stat., ch. 4, leaves it as it was. The first section, as in the act of 1777, refers to suits inter partes; and the enumeration in the second section includes only the proceeding by petition for a road or ferry, as under the act of 1813.
We think, therefore, that the motion in the Superior Court to dismiss the appeal should have been allowed, and a procedendo issued to the county court confirming their order and directing its execution.
PER CURIAM. Reversed. *56
(66)