Williams v. . Tillman
50 S.E.2d 33
N.C.
1948
Check Treatment
*435 Stacy, C. J.

The Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as the order allowing the plaintiff to appeal in forma pauperis is unsupported by the necessary affidavit. McIntire v. McIntire, 203 N. C. 631, 166 S. E. 732; Hanna v. Timberlake, 203 N. C. 556, 166 S. E. 733. The requirements of the statute allowing appeals in forma pauperis are mandatory,' not directory, and a failure to comply with the requirements deprives this Court of any appellate jurisdiction. G.S. 1-288; Powell v. Moore, 204 N. C. 654, 169 S. E. 281; Brown v. Kress Co., 207 N. C. 722, 178 S. E. 248; Gilmore v. Ins. Co., 214 N. C. 674, 200 S. E. 407. See S. v. Stafford, 203 N. C. 601, 166 S. E. 734.

The notation in the appeal entries that plaintiff was “allowed to appeal in forma pauperis” is unavailing in the absence of adequate supporting affidavit. Riggan v. Harrison, 203 N. C. 191, 165 S. E. 358. There is no authority for granting an appeal in forma pauperis without the jurisdictional affidavit as denominated in the statute. Lupton v. Hawkins, 210 N. C. 658, 188 S. E. 110.

Giving bond on appeal, or revealing adequate leave to appeal without bond, is a jurisdictional requirement, and unless met by compliance, the appeal is not in this Court, and we can take no cognizance of the case except to dismiss it from our docket. Honeycutt v. Watkins, 151 N. C. 652, 65 S. E. 762; Brown v. Kress Co., supra.

Appeal dismissed.