Civil Action tried, upon a demurrer to the complaint, at Spring Term, 1881, >of Clay Superior Court, before Bennett, J. Judgment overruling the demurrer was rendered by the court, but by reason of matters bejmnd their control the defendants were prevented from taking their appeal in time, and at the October term, 1881, of this couit they made application for a writ of certiorari, and the same was granted and issued returnable on the first Monday of April 1882.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1827
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
¶1
The court feels constrained, though reluctant, to yield to the plaintiff’s motion to distoiss. A
certiorari,
being but a substitute for an appeal, can only be allowed upon the same terms as are prescribed for it, and must be attended by like security.
Estes
v.
Harrison,
1 Dev. 354.
¶2
The defendants having, themselves,recognized the record sent from the superior court as a return to the writ of
cer-tiorari
issued from this court, and as such procured the same to be docketed, it is now too late to disclaim it. Besides this, it is attached to and associated with the writ, and it is impossible to avoid knowing that it was sent in obedience to the writ and as a return thereto.
¶3
As decided in
Hutchison
v.
Rumfelt,
82 N. C., 425, a motion to dismiss an appeal for irregularity may, under the rule of this court, be made at the time when the cause is
*285
called for trial, though it may have been on the docket at a previous term and continued for want of time to try it.
¶4
It is much to be hoped that the legislature will, in some way, relieve the court and the parties from the present stringent requirements of the law with reference to appeals.
¶5
The terms of the statute are so plain that we could give them no other interpretation than the one adopted in
Bryson
v.
Lucas,
84 N. C., 397, and yet we are painfully conscious, at times, of its doing injustice to parties.
