Dupree v. Tuten, 97 N.C. 94 (1887)

Feb. 1887 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

97 N.C. 94

D. D. DUPREE v. MARY B. TUTEN et als.

Appeal.

Unless errors are assigned in the record expressly or by necessary implication, the judgment will be affirmed.

{Meekins v. Tcttem, 79 N. C., 546; Paschal v. Bullock, 80 N. 0., 8; Bank v. Its Creditors, Ibid., 9; Mott v. Ramsay. 90 N. C., 29; Pleasants v. The Railroad, 95 N. 0., 195; cited and approved).

Appeal from an order, made by the clerk, in a Special Proceeding, heard by Oudger, Judge, at February Term, 1886, of Beaufort Superior Court.

The point on which the case goes off in this Court renders it unnecessary to state the facts.

No counsel for the plaintiff.

Mr. W. B. Rodman, Jr., for the defendants.

Merrimon, J.

It does not appear from the record that any exception was taken to the rulings of the Court, nor are errors assigned either in terms or by reasonable implication.

There is nothing in the record that shows the slightest dissatisfaction on the part of the appellants, except simply the fact that they took the appeal.

It is the well settled rule applicable in such cases, that the judgment must be affirmed. Meekins v. Tatem, 79 N. C., 546; Paschal v. Bullock, 80 N. C., 8; Bank v. Creditors, Ibid., 9; Mott v. Ramsay, 90 N. C., 29; Pleasants v. The Railroad Co., 95 N.C., 195.

The judgment must therefore be affirmed.

No error. Affirmed.