¶1 The mere fact that the Judge who tried the cause has gone out of office will not prevent his settling the case on appeal. The defect in that regard, formerly existing in the statute, was remedied by section 550 of The Code, in the latter part of the section. But it further appears that the papers were sent to the Judge and are lost, and that there lias been no laches on the part of the appellant, who has been diligent in endeavoring to have the case on appeal settled by the Judge. This the Judge is unable to do by reason of the loss of the notes of the trial and the papers, and the parties are unable to agree upon a case. Under these circumstances a new tidal must be ordered. Owens v. Barton, 106 N. C., 480; Clemmons v. Archbell, 107 N. C., 653; State v. Parks, Ibid., 821. Now Trial.
114 N.C. 373
19 S.E 239
Ritter v. . Grimm
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided February 5, 1894
Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1894-02-05
At August Term, 1893, of Moore Superior Court, before Connor, J., the plaintiff obtained judgment against the defendant, who appealed and afterwards sued out a writ of certiorari, in the return to which it appeared that the trial Judge to whom the papers were sent to make out the case on appeal had resigned before they were so sent and that he had misplaced his trial notes and papers and could not state the case on appeal.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1962
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1894-02-05
View the full empirical analysis of this case →