Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

242 N.C. 302

87 S.E.2d 519

Langley v. Gore

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 25, 1955

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1955-05-25

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“nothing in the record to show that defendants have any interest in, or claim to [the funds at issue]. Indeed, defendants say in their brief, filed on this appeal, that they “did not claim the fund as theirs personally.” They assert, however, reasons why they think plaintiffs are not entitled to the fund.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Huttig Building Products, Inc. v. McDonald

Relies on Baker v. Varser · Henderson County v. . Smyth · Watkins v. Grier

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1955-05-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently May 2014

17 state decisions

601955196019701980199020002010decided

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 →

WiNBORNE, J.

¶1 This appeal is directed solely to the judgment of the court below in respect to disposition of the fund of money in the hands of the Clerk of Superior Court. But there is nothing in the record to show that defendants have any interest in, or claim to it. Indeed, defendants say in their brief, filed on this appeal, that they “did not claim the fund as theirs personally.” They assert, however, reasons why they think plaintiffs are not entitled to the fund. Nevertheless, they are not the parties aggrieved.

¶2 Any party aggrieved may appeal in the cases prescribed in Chapter 1 of General Statutes entitled “Civil Procedure.” G.S. 1-271. And this Court, in interpreting and applying this statute, has uniformly held that only the party aggrieved may appeal from the Superior Court to the Supreme Court. See Watkins v. Grier, 224 N.C. 339, 30 S.E. 2d 223, and numerous other cases.

¶3 Therefore, we are constrained to hold that by this appeal this Court has not acquired jurisdiction of any matter to which the action or proceeding may relate. Such being the case, the Court is impelled ex mero motu to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Henderson County v. Smyth, 216 N.C. 421, 5 S.E. 2d 136, where prior cases are cited. See also Baker v. Varser, 239 N.C. 180, 79 S.E. 2d 757, and cases cited.

¶4 Appeal dismissed.

/242/nc/302 · .json · Public domain