Case ID: nc_142/html/0130-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ARRINGTON v. ARRINGTON.
    (Filed September 25, 1906).
    
      Reinstatement of Case — Practice.
    A motion to reinstate a ease upon the docket was properly denied, where it appears that all matters in controversy were- decided in an opinion by this Court at February Term, 1894, and the case was remanded in order that judgment might be entered in accordance with the opinion of the Court, and there was nothing presented which discloses a necessity for reinstating the case.
    AotioN by Pattie D. B. Arrington against J. P. and B. L. Arrington, beard by Judge Q. W. Ward at tbe May Term, 1906, of tbe Superior Court of Vance upon motion by plaintiff to reinstate tbe cause upon tbe civil issue docket. Erom an order denying tbe motion, tbe plaintiff appealed.
    Tbe plaintiff filed a manuscript brief.
   Per Curiam.

We gather from tbe manuscript argument filed in tbis Court by tbe plaintiff, in person, tbat ber object in desiring a reinstatement of tbe cause is to reopen tbe same and bave another reference. Tbe case came before tbis Court at February Term, 1894 (114 N. 0., 151), and upon exceptions to tbe report of tbe referee. In an elaborate opinion by Shepherd, O. J., all tbe matters in controversy were decided and “tbe case remanded in order tbat judgments may be entered in accordance with the opinion of tbis Court.” The' record of tbe ease since then is not before us, but we assume as a matter of course tbat such final judgments bave long since been entered.

There was nothing presented to Judge Ward, or in tbe papers sent here on tbis appeal from bis order, which discloses a necessity for a further reference or for reinstating tbe case on tbe docket of the Superior Court. Tbe order of bis Honor in tbe Superior Court is

Affirmed.