Title: Wiggins v. Bunch

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

184 S.E.2d 879 (1971)
280 N.C. 106
Emmett H. WIGGINS, Plaintiff,
v.
Miles E. BUNCH et al., Defendants, and
State of North Carolina, Additional Defendant.
No. 7.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.
December 15, 1971.
Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan and Staff Atty. Rafford E. Jones, Raleigh, for the State of North Carolina, appellant.
Twiford & Abbott by Russell E. Twiford, Elizabeth City, for plaintiff appellee.
*880 BRANCH, Justice.
The parties to this appeal do not present the question of whether the Superior Court had jurisdiction to enter the order of 1 July 1970.
For many years it has been recognized that as a general rule an appeal takes the case out of the jurisdiction of the trial court. In American Floor Machine Co. v. Dixon, 260 N.C. 732, 133 S.E.2d 659, it was stated:
Accord: Pelaez v. Carland, 268 N.C. 192, 150 S.E.2d 201; Hoke v. Greyhound Corp., 227 N.C. 374, 42 S.E.2d 407; State Bank v. Twitty, 13 N.C. 386.
Plaintiff made his motion to set aside the judgment pursuant to Rules 59 and 60 of the New Rules of Civil Procedure. We must therefore determine the effect of Rules 59 and 60 upon the above stated general rule as applied to the facts of this case. This presents a problem of first impression in this jurisdiction.
Rule 59 provides:
Clearly Rule 59 does not apply to the facts of this case since the motion for new trial was not made within the period of time specified by that rule.
Thus, if plaintiff is entitled to any relief, it must be found in the provisions of Rule 60.
Rule 60(b) in part provides:
The nearly identical provisions of our Rule 60(b) and Federal Rule 60(b) point to the Federal decisions for interpretation and enlightenment.
In the case of Switzer v. Marzall, 95 F. Supp. 721 (1951) the defendant filed a motion for a new trial and later gave notice of appeal. The appellate court in holding that the defendant removed the case from the jurisdiction of the trial court when he appealed, stated:
This question was considered and summarily treated in the case of Norman v. Young, 422 F.2d 470 (10 Cir. 1970). There the Court stated:
In 7 J. Moore, Federal Practice, Par. 60:30(2), (2 ed., 1970), we find the following:
Moore also points out that "(a) motion for relief under Rule 60(b) does not affect the finality of a judgment and hence does not toll the time for appeal from the final judgment. Correlatively, an appeal from the final judgment does not enlarge the *882 time within which to move for relief under 60(b)." Id. Par. 60:30(1).
The general rule set forth in Machine Company v. Dixon, supra, and Peraez v. Carland, supra, is not changed by Rules 59 and 60 of the New Rules of Civil Procedure. Here, when the appeal was taken the trial court was divested of jurisdiction except to aid in certifying a correct record. Plaintiffs failed to move for a new trial in the appellate division within the time allowed by Rule 60(b).
The order of the trial court vacating the judgment of 28 April 1970 and granting a new trial on ground of newly discovered evidence is of no effect since it was entered after the trial court was divested of jurisdiction. The order is vacated.
Order vacated.