Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

101 N.C. 181

7 S.E 710

Lane v. . Richardson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 5, 1888

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1888-09-05

This is an appeal from the refusal of his Honor, Shipp, J., to strike from the record in this action the names of certain parties and their pleadings, at October Term, 1888, of ChathaM Superior Court. a The plaintiff's action is to recover the balance due on a note under seal for five hundred dollars executed to one J. B. Harris on March 31,1887, by the defendant Jesse Richardson, due one day after date, and bearing interest from date at the rate of eight per cent per annum…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1888-09-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1975

4 state decisions

201888189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Smith, C. J.

¶1 (after stating the case.) We are unable to see how tiie presence of Harris in the action betweeen his en-dorsee and the debtor and solely in aid of the latter in resisting the counter claim can affect the controversy, since the transfer carries with it the rights and equities of the endorser in whose place the plaintiff stands. But without deciding the point we can not entertain the appeal at this stage of the proceedings. Harris was allowed to become a defendant and put in an antagonistic answer to Richardson and in support of the plaintiff, after which ineffectual resisten ce is offered to the action of the Court in the denied motion. We have repeatedly held that a cause can not be thus arrested *184 where no substantial right is impaired or affected by the ruling coúiplained of, and this appeal belongs to that class.

¶2 The case of Merrill v. Merrill, 92 N. C., 657, cited for the appellant is not an authority for the present appeal, for that case simply'decides that when the action must fail and a piaintiff proposed to be substituted could not in law carry on the action, it would be error to allow such an amendment and retain the cause.

¶3 The appeal must therefore be dismissed as prematurely taken, and it is so adjudged.

¶4 Appeal dismissed,

/101/nc/181 · .json · Public domain