Case ID: nc-app_11/html/0193-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BRITT, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

AMMIE ROSS McCONNELL v. CARY JONES McCONNELL
    No. 7126DC253
    (Filed 28 April 1971)
    Appeal and Error § 41 — narration of evidence on appeal
    Appeal is dismissed for failure of appellant to state the evidence in narrative form. Rule of Practice in the Court of Appeals No. 19(d).
    Appeal by plaintiff from Gatling, District Judge, 14 January 1971 Session, Mecklenburg District Court.
    This is an action for temporary and permanent alimony and counsel fees pursuant to G.S. 50-16.1 et seq. Following a hearing on plaintiff’s motion for alimony pendente lite and counsel fees1, the court entered an order in which it found facts in favor of defendant and denied plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Gene H. Kendall for plaintiff appellant.
    
    
      J. C. Sedberry for defendant appellee.
    
   BRITT, Judge.

The purported record on appeal filed in this case does not comply with the Rules of the Court of Appeals. Among other things, the evidence introduced at the hearing is not set forth in narrative form. Plaintiff filed what purports to be a stenographic transcript of the testimony supposedly in compliance with our original Rule 19(d) (2), but Rule 19(d) was amended by the Supreme Court on 11 February 1969, the amendment becoming effective on 1 July 1969. 2 N.C. App. 690. The amendment provides that the “evidence in case on appeal shall be in narrative form” and that the stenographic transcript of the evidence may not be used as an alternative to narration of the evidence. For failure to comply with the Rules, plaintiff’s appeal is, ex mero motu, dismissed. Crosby v. Crosby, 1 N.C. App. 398, 161 S.E. 2d 654 (1968).

Nevertheless, we have carefully reviewed the record on appeal as filed and conclude that the trial court’s order is fully supported by the findings of fact, which findings are amply supported by competent evidence.

Appeal dismissed.

Judges Campbell and Graham concur.