Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

95 N.C. 193

Leak v. . Covington

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 5, 1886

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1886-10-05

Civil action, heard upon exceptions to the report of a referee, by MaeBae, Judge, at December Term, 1885, of Richhond Superior Court. This is an action brought by creditors against the principal defendant, as executor of the will of William L. Covington, deceased. In the course of the action, an account was ordered to be taken. The referees took and stated an account, and made report thereof, to which the defendant filed numerous exceptions.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-10-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 2010

4 state decisions

2018861890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 →

MerrimoN, J.

¶1 (after stating the facts). It is manifest that the order appealed from is interlocutory in its nature. It does not put an end to the action ; indeed, it is expressly stated that “ it is retained for the trial of the issues raised by the pleadings, and for further directions.” The account is incidental to other questions and matters yet to be settled in the further progress of the action.

¶2 It will not destroy or seriously impair any substantial right of the defendant involved in the order, to. postpone the correction of the errors assigned, if they are such, until after the final judgment, when the defendant may appeal and have the errors now specified in the record, and any others he may possibly complain of in the further progress of the action, corrected all by one appeal.

¶3 If appeals like this should be entertained, an indefinite number of them might be taken in the same action, thus producing delay, confusion and increased costs.

¶4*195 Generally, appeals do not lie until after final judgment. The •cases are exceptional where they lie from interlocutory orders. Actions cannot be brought to this Court for the correction of errors piecemeal — in fragments and sections. Such a-practice would be fruitful of the evils suggested, and would greatly tend to impair the order, unity and consistency of the action, while there is practically no necessity for it.

¶5 It is only when the judgment or order appealed from in the •course of the action puts an end to it, or may put an end to it, or has the effect to deprive the party complaining of some substantial right, or will seriously impair such right if the error shall not be corrected at once, and before the final hearing, that an appeal lies before final judgment. There are many decisions to this effect. Lutz v. Cline, 89 N. C., 186; Jones v. Call, Ib., 188; Arrington v. Arrington, 91 N. C., 301; Hicks v. Bullock, 93 N. C., 112 ; Welsh v. Kinsland, Ib., 281.

¶6 The appeal must be dismissed. It is so ordered.

¶7 Dismissed.

/95/nc/193 · .json · Public domain