Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina
City of Goldsboro v. Holmes
City of Goldsboro v. Holmes, 183 N.C. 203 (N.C. 1922)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of North Carolina
- Jurisdiction
- North Carolina
- Date
- 1922-03-22
- Topic
- general
Adams, J. The record presents an interesting and important question, but we are precluded from giving it consideration at this time. His Honor’s order was interlocutory, not final. The trial should determine all matters at issue, so that a final judgment may be rendered. An appeal that is fragmentary will not be entertained.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed City of Goldsboro v. Holmes. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 8 opinions
The record presents an interesting and important question, but we are precluded from giving it consideration at this time. His Honor’s order was interlocutory, not final. The trial should determine all matters at issue, so that a final judgment may be rendered. An appeal that is fragmentary will not be entertained. In addition, we have repeatedly held that no appeal lies from a refusal to dismiss an action or proceeding. Capps v. R. R., 182 N. C., 758; Farr v. Lumber Co., ibid., 725; Cement Co. v. Phillips, ibid., 438. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.