Court Opinion

ID: 9807942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:21:39.306397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:12.295932
License: Public Domain

AlusN, J.,
dissenting: The appellant failed to have a transcript of the record prepared for this Court and the appeal was docketed upon the production of the original papers from the office of the clerk of the Superior Court.
This was irregular and unauthorized, and I think the remedy of the appellee was to move to strike the case from our docket, or to present the certificate of the clerk of the Superior Court, and move to dismiss under Rule 17; but he did neither.
He moved to dismiss the appeal before a transcript was filed, and when no appeal was pending in this Court.
The appellant then filed a transcript and moved for a certiorari to bring up the case on appeal, and on the hearing it has been made to appear that if the transcript had been docketed in due time in the first instance the appeal could not have been heard at this term because of unavoidable delays in settling the case on appeal.
The statement of the case by appellant was not served in due time, but I think this was waived by acceptance of service by the appellee, by serving exceptions to case on appeal, and by his appearance before the judge twice after notice and engaging in settling the case without making any point as to the time of service of appellants’ case, and without objection as to the power of the judge to settle the case. Roberts v. Partridge, 118 N. C., 355; Love v. Huffines, 151 N. C., 378.
It is true, appellees’ counsel in accepting service struck out the words “in due time’” indorsed on the statement of the case, but he made no *823objection as to time tben or thereafter until the motion for certiorari was made by appellant.
I think the certiorari ought to issue, to the end that the appeal may be heard on its merits.
Hoke, J., concurs.