Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

240 N.C. 116

Macon v. Murray

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 7, 1954

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1954-04-07

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 1956

4 state decisions

Relies on Salley v. Fayetteville Coca-Cola Bottling Co. · State v. Jenkins · Ericson v. . Ericson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1954-04-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Pee. Cueiam.

¶1As the pleadings on which the case was tried have been omitted from the record, in violation of the requirements of Rule 19, Section 1 of the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N.C. 544, at page 553, the appeal must be dismissed in accordance with the uniform practice in such cases. See S. v. Lumber Co., 207 N.C. 47, 175 S.E. 713, and cases cited. See also Ins. Co. v. Bullard, 207 N.C. 652, 178 S.E. 113; Goodman v. Goodman, 208 N.C. 416, 181 S.E. 328; Bank v. McCullers, 211 N.C. 327, 190 S.E. 217; Washington County v. Land Co., 222 N.C. 637, 24 S.E. 2d 338; Ericson v. Ericson, 226 N.C. 474, 38 S.E. 2d 517; S. v. Jenkins, 234 N.C. 112, 66 S.E. 819; Smoak v. Newton, 234 N.C. 451, 67 S.E. 2d 462; Allen v. Allen, 235 N.C. 554, 70 S.E. 2d 505. “We can judicially know only what properly appears on the record,” Stacy, C. J., in S. v. Lumber Co., supra.

¶2In the absence of agreement of parties, it is not now deemed expedient to supply the deficiency by reference to records on former appeals.

¶3Appeal dismissed.

/240/nc/116 · .json · Public domain