Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

R. D. HONEYCUTT v. J. E. WATKINS ET AL.

Appeal and Error — Forma Pauperis — Defective Affidavit — Jurisdictional — Dismissal of Appeal.

The affidavit for an appeal in forma pauperis is defective which does not aver "that the appellant is advised by counsel learned in the law that there is error in matter of law," etc., Revisal, sec. 597; and the compliance with the provisions of this section being jurisdictional, the appellee can have the appeal dismissed as a matter of right upon the failure of appellant to comply therewith.

PER CURIAM:

The motion to dismiss must be allowed. The appeal is in (653) forma pauperis, and the affidavit is fatally defective, in that it does not contain the averment required by the first proviso in Revisal, sec. 597, that the appellant "is advised by counsel learned in the law that there is error, in matter of law, in the decision of the Superior Court."

Giving bond on appeal, or the granting leave to appeal without bond, are jurisdictional, and, unless the statute is complied with, the appeal is not in this Court, and we can take no cognizance of the case, except to dismiss it from our docket. It has been always held that if the affidavit to procure an appeal in forma pauperis is defective, it is not a matter of discretion with the court, but the appellee can have the appeal dismissed as a matter of right. S. v. Atkinson, 141 N.C. 734; S. v. Payne, 93 N.C. 612; S. v. Harris, 114 N.C. 831; S. v. Bramble, 121 N.C. 603; S. v. Gatewood, 125 N.C. 695, and numerous cases cited in the last two cases.

Appeal dismissed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HONEYCUTT v. WATKINS
(Oct 1, 1909)