Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

239 N.C. 120

Prevatte v. Prevatte

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 16, 1953

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1953-12-16

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 1984

2 state decisions

Relies on Williams v. . Tillman · Anderson v. Worthington · Brown Ex Rel. Brown v. S. H. Kress & Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1953-12-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1This was a suit for divorce a mensa. From order denying motion for alimony pendente Ute the plaintiff gave notice of appeal and attempted to appeal in forma pauperis. However, it appears *121that there was no order allowing appeal in forma, pauperis after the filing of affidavit of poverty subsequent to the term. GLS. 1-288. True, the judge wrote in the judgment “plaintiff allowed to appeal in forma pau-peris upon compliance with the statute,” but this would not authorize disregard of the provisions of the statute. Anderson v. Worthington, 238 N.C. 577. The requirements of the statute allowing appeals in forma pauperis are mandatory and failure to comply deprives this Court of any appellate jurisdiction. Williams v. Tillman, 229 N.C. 434, 50 S.E. 2d 33; Brown v. Kress & Co., 207 N.C. 722, 178 S.E. 248.

¶2Appeal dismissed.

/239/nc/120 · .json · Public domain