Case Name: COUNTY OF DARE v. R. O. GIVENS SIGNS, INC.
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1986-06-17
Citations: 81 N.C. App. 526
Docket Number: No. 861SC89
Parties: COUNTY OF DARE v. R. O. GIVENS SIGNS, INC.
Judges: Chief Judge Hedrick and Judge Eagles concur.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 81
Pages: 526–527

Head Matter:
COUNTY OF DARE v. R. O. GIVENS SIGNS, INC.
No. 861SC89
(Filed 17 June 1986)
Appeal and Error § 6.2— order determining fewer than all issues —appeal premature
An order granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of plaintiff, ordering defendant to remove certain signs within sixty days and providing that the issue of whether compensation, and the amount thereof, was due defendant was not ruled on by the order did not dispose of all the claims of the parties; therefore, an appeal from that order was interlocutory and is dismissed.
APPEAL by defendant from Barefoot, Judge. Order filed 12 November 1985 in Superior Court, DARE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 June 1986.
Shearin & Archbell by Roy A. Archbell, Jr., for defendant appellant.
Bailey, Dixon, Wooten, McDonald, Fountain & Walker by John N. Fountain and Carotin Bakewell for plaintiff appellee.

Opinion:
COZORT, Judge.
This appeal is interlocutory, and we dismiss it.
Defendant appeals from a 12 November 1985 order granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of plaintiff, ordering defendant to remove certain signs within sixty days. The record does not show that defendant has sought a stay of this order. The order also expressly provides that "the issue of whether compensation is due to Defendant and the amount of any such compensation, raised by the first and second claims of Defendant's counterclaim, is expressly not ruled on by this order."
No G.S. 1A-1, Rule 54(b), certification of "no just reason for delay" is contained in the 12 November 1985 order. The appeal is clearly interlocutory; it does not dispose of all the claims of the parties. Therefore, in this case the order is appealable only if it affects a substantial right. G.S. 1-277; G.S. 7A-27.
The defendant does not contend that the interlocutory order affects a substantial right, and we decline to so hold.
Appeal dismissed.
Chief Judge Hedrick and Judge Eagles concur.