Case ID: nc_197/html/0081-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Stacy, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

C. M. CECIL, TRUSTEE, and N. C. LOWE v. SNOW LUMBER COMPANY.
    (Filed 17 April, 1929.)
    Appeal and Error P a — Assignment of errors under Rules of Court.
    Where exceptions and assignments of error in a special municipal court are overruled upon appeal to the Superior Court, and are again relied on in an appeal to the Supreme Court, they must he .sufficiently definite to enable the Supreme Court to understand what questions are sought to be presented without a voyage of- discovery through the record, Rule 19, sec. 3, and otherwise the appeal will be dismissed on the appellee’s motion.
    Appeal by defendant from Shaw, J., at December Term, 1928, of Guileoed.
    Civil action to recover funds alleged to have been deposited in the Commercial National Bank of High Point by C. M. Cecil, trustee, and seized under execution by the Snow Lumber Company.
    The case was tried in the municipal court of the city of High Point, the court of first instance, where findings were made in favor of the plaintiffs and judgment entered thereon. On appeal to the Superior Court of Guilford County, these findings were approved and the judgment of the municipal court affirmed.
    The defendant appeals, assigning error as follows:
    “The errors heretofore assigned in the Superior Court are hereby assigned in the Supreme Court, and as same were duly grouped in the Superior Court, appellant does not deem it necessary to restate and group same.”
    
      Tbe assignments of errors in tbe Superior Court were as follows:
    “On appeal to tbe Superior Court, tbe defendant hereunder groups its exceptions and respectfully assigns in error tbe actions of tbe court as set out in its respective exceptions and assignments of error, as follows: Exception No. 6 (R., p. 38). Refusal of court to make tbe finding of facts, to draw tbe conclusions of law and to sign tbe judgment as tendered by tbe defendant, as set out in tbe record.
    “Exception No. 7 (R., p. 38). Tbe signing of tbe judgment as set out in tbe record.”
    Looking back into tbe record, it appears that tbe “special verdict, conclusions of law and judgment” tendered by tbe defendant, tbe subject of tbe sixth exception, covers more than eight pages of tbe record, and tbe judgment signed, tbe subject of tbe seventh exception, covers approximately five pages. Tbe exceptions are not specific.
    
      C. G. Barnhart, Robinson, Haworth & Reese- and, Z. I. Walser for plaintiffs.
    
    
      Peacock & Dalton and Austin ■& Turner for defendant.
    
   Stacy, C. J.

Tbe municipal court of tbe city of High Point was created as a “special court for tbe trial of petit misdemeanors” by chapter '569, Public-Local Laws 1913. It was given civil jurisdiction in certain cases by chapter 699, Public-Local Laws 1927, with tbe right of either tbe plaintiff or tbe defendant in civil actions or tbe defendant in any criminal action and tbe State in certain criminal prosecutions to appeal to tbe Superior Court of Guilford County in term time “for errors assigned in matters of law in tbe same manner and under tbe same requirements as are now provided by law for appeals from tbe Superior Court to tbe Supreme Court,” etc. This means that in bearing cases on appeal from tbe municipal court of tbe city of High Point, tbe Superior Court of Guilford County sits as an appellate court, subject to review by tbe Supreme Court.

The assignments of error, appearing on tbe present record, are not sufficiently definite to enable tbe court to understand what questions are sought to be presented, without a voyage of discovery through tbe record. Sturtevant v. Cotton Mills, 171 N. C., 119, 87 S. E., 992. Hence, tbe motion of plaintiffs to dismiss tbe appeal and to affirm tbe judgment for failure to comply with Rule 19, sec. 3, would seem to be well founded. Porter v. Lumber Co., 164 N. C., 396, 80 S. E., 443.

We have examined tbe record, however, and find no reversible error. Thresher Co. v. Thomas, 170 N. C., 680, 87 S. E., 327.

Appeal dismissed.