133 S.E. 162 | N.C. | 1926
The plaintiffs brought suit against the defendant to recover a tract of land and to remove a cloud from their title. The cause was tried at a term of the Superior Court which convened 27 July, 1925, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendant gave notice of appeal and his case and the plaintiffs' counter-case *778
were served in due time. The Supreme Court was not then in session, and under the fifth and seventh rules of practice (
"It is the established rule of our procedure that an appeal from a judgment rendered prior to the commencement of a term of this Court must be brought to the next succeeding term of this Court, and in order to a hearing in regular order, the same shall be docketed seven days before the calling of the docket of the district to which it belongs . . . In numerous decisions of the Court dealing directly with the subject, it has been held that these rules governing appeals are mandatory and must be uniformly enforced, the only modification permitted or sanctioned by these decisions being to the effect that where from lack of sufficient time or other cogent reason, the case on appeal may not be in shape for docketing in the time required, the appellant may within such time docket the record proper and move for a certiorari, which may be allowed by the Court on sufficient showing made." S. v. Farmer,
In Haynes v. Coward,
From the decisions and the rules of practice in the Supreme Court the following conclusions, as applicable to this appeal, may be deduced: 1. The transcript of the record on appeal from a judgment rendered before the commencement of a term of this Court must be docketed fourteen days before the calling in its order of the docket of the district to which it belongs. Rule 5 as amended,
These conclusions are supported by the following additional authorities:S. v. Dawkins,
Under the circumstances disclosed by the record the appeal must be dismissed; but we have examined the appellant's exceptions and in our opinion the case was tried in substantial compliance with the law and is free from reversible error. The chief controversy involved questions of fact, such for instance as the adverse possession of the defendant and those under whom he claimed.
Appeal dismissed. *780