Parrish v. . Hartman

Oct 13, 1937
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Stacy
Stacy, C. J.

The order striking out defendants’ purported statement of case on appeal, because not ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‍served in time, is supported by a long line of decisions, of which S. v. Moore, 210 N. C., 686, 188 S. E., 421, may be cited as the most recent. The ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‍failure to have a “case on appeal,” however, does not ipso facto work a dismissal. Roberts v. Bus Co., 198 N. C., 779, 153 S. E., 398. Non constat that error may not appear on the ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‍face o‘f the record proper. Edwards v. Perry, 208 N. C., 252, 179 S. E., 892; Wallace v. Salisbury, 147 N. C., 58, 60 S. E., 713.

Here; error does appear on the face of ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‍the record proper. The judgment is in excess of the verdict in its award of interest on the recovery. This will be modified so as to conform with the ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‍verdict as it appears of record in the Superior Court of Yancey County.

Modified and affirmed.