Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

25 N.C. App. 307

212 S.E.2d 915

Carpenter v. Carpenter

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · decided 1975-04-02

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“When an appeal is perfected as provided by this Article it stays all further proceedings in the court below upon the judgment appealed from, or upon the matter embraced therein; but the court below may proceed upon any other matter included in the action and not affected by the judgment appealed from.”

quoted by 6 later decisions, including 261 N.C. App. 157 - Henson v. Henson, 261 N.C. App. 387 - Quevedo-Woolf v. Overholser

Relies on Wiggins v. Bunch · American Floor MacHine Co. v. Dixon · 14 N.C. App. 107 - Upton v. Upton

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1975-04-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently September 2018

18 state decisions

6019751980199020002010decided

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 →

PARKER, Judge.

¶1 G.S. 1-294 provides that “[w]hen an appeal is perfected as provided by this article it stays all further proceedings in the court below upon the judgment appealed from, or upon the matter embraced therein; but the court below may proceed upon any other matter included in the action and not affected by the judgment appealed from.” Here, by entering the order of 25 November 1974 the District Court undertook to proceed upon the very matters which were embraced in and which were directly affected by the previous order appealed from which was dated 24 June 1974.

¶2 As a general rule an appeal takes the case out of the jurisdiction of the trial court, Wiggins v. Bunch, 280 N.C. 106, 184 S.E. 2d 879 (1971) ; Bowes v. Bowes, 19 N.C. App. 373, 198 S.E. 2d 732 (1973) ; Upton v. Upton, 14 N.C. App. 107, 187 S.E. 2d 387 (1972); G.S. 1-294; and, with certain exceptions *309 noted in Machine Co. v. Dixon, 260 N.C. 732, 133 S.E. 2d 659 (1963) and not here applicable, pending the appeal the trial judge is functus officio. Therefore, the District Court in the present case had no jurisdiction to hear and pass upon defendant’s motion filed on 19 November 1974 while the appeal of this case was pending in the Court of Appeals.-

¶3 Accordingly, the order of the District Court dated 25 November 1974 is

¶4 Vacated.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Arnold concur.
/25/ncapp/307 · .json · Public domain