{ "id": 11273575, "name": "M. L. PRUETT, Administrator, v. CHARLOTTE POWER COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Pruett v. Charlotte Power Co.", "decision_date": "1914-12-23", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "598", "last_page": "600", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "167 N.C. 598" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "32 S. C., 102", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "S.C.", "case_ids": [ 2346628 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sc/32/0102-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 N. C., 415", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8682932 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/74/0415-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 N. C., 50", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272922 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/95/0050-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 N. C., 492", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8683262 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/82/0492-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 N. C., 202", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8649842 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/99/0202-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 N. C., 944", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8662979 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/122/0944-01" ] }, { "cite": "165 N. C., 416", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659399 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/165/0416-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 367, "char_count": 6737, "ocr_confidence": 0.472, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.454692228354029e-07, "percentile": 0.8043926499189721 }, "sha256": "27420b58a8ee9fd2ca7c909c13819ceef81c97d2bd59201e137864c5df2b1fd8", "simhash": "1:5a4f3d5d56e00e8e", "word_count": 1164 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:55:31.572596+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "M. L. PRUETT, Administrator, v. CHARLOTTE POWER COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "IIoke, J.\nFrom a perusal of the facts in evidence, it appears that this cause was instituted by issuance of the summons on 5 August, 1912.\nAt November Term, 1913, on petition duly verified and accompanied by proper bond, defendants applied for removal of cause to the Federal court on the ground of diversity of citizenship, and the application having been denied at said term, defendants appealed to Supreme Court, filing proper bond, the record constituting the case on appeal.\nThe appeal was duly docketed in the Court on 2 April, 1914. The same was heard in the week assigned to causes of Fourteenth District, beginning 21 April, and was decided some time thereafter, the Court, in an opinion by Chief Jusiice Clark, sustaining the judgment of the lower court. See cause reported in 165 N. C., 416. The present trial and judgment was bad at March Term, 1914, of the Superior Court of Meck-lenburg County, and the case on appeal states that when the cause was called for trial at said term and before the jury were impaneled, counsel for defendants informed the court of the \u201cpending appeal\u201d and insisted on their petition to remove, and stated that they did not waive their' rights under said petition. In their case on appeal it is formally assigned for error: \u201cThat his Honor proceeded with the trial pending the appeal,\u201d etc.\nIt is well recognized in this jurisdiction that from an order denying an application to remove a cause to the Federal court an appeal presently lies. (Howard v. R. R., 122 N. C., 944; Pipe Co. v. Howland, 99 N. C., 202; Fitzgerald v. Allman, 82 N. C., 492) ; and on these, the facts chiefly relevant, we are of opinion that the court was without power to hear and determine the issues arising on the pleadings, and that the verdict and judgment thereon rendered at March term must be set aside.\nOur statute on this subject, Revisal, sec. 602, in part provides: \u201cThat whenever an appeal is perfected, as provided by this chapter, it stays all further proceedings in the court below upon the judgment appealed from or upon the matter embraced therein, but the court below may proceed upon any other matter included in the action and not affected by the judgment appealed from,\u201d etc.\nIn various cases where the construction of this statute was directly or indirectly involved, the Court has held that an appeal is not to be considered as perfected until it is duly docketed in the Supreme Court; but in all of them, so far as examined, the questions presented were either on the right of this Court to take cognizance of some matter embraced in the appeal before docketing the record or the time within which the appellant had the right to docket had expired, and the parties were allowed to proceed in the court below on the idea that the appeal had been either temporarily or finally abandoned or there was some omission or laches on the part of the appellant which were considered as a waiver of his rights in the premises. But in this present case no such facts are presented. The defendants, having applied for a removal of the cause to the Federal court, had presently appealed from a judgment denying the motion. The application was on the ground of diversity of citizenship, and the appeal involved the right to the State court to try the cause, and therefore included within its scope and effect all the issues presented in the record. Bond was filed in apt time; the record constituted the case on appeal, and nothing remained to be done but the filing of a proper transcript within the time required.\nTbis was primarily tbe duty of tbe clerk of tbe Superior Court, aud while we bave held that tbe appellant must see to it that such a transcript is duly filed, as a matter of fact it was filed in tbe present instance in ample time within tbe statute and tbe rules of tbis Court, and tbe cause was regularly beard and determined on the call of tbe district.\nTbe defendant being in no default, and insisting on tbe rights guaranteed him under tbe law and tbe rules of tbis Court, is entitled to be protected from tbe costs and harassments of a trial until tbe matter is determined, and, under tbe circumstances as stated, we must bold that an appeal, docketed within tbe time and regularly prosecuted, relates back to tbe time of trial; that it operates as a stay of proceedings within tbe meaning of tbe statute, and brings tbe present cause within tbe principle of tbe cases which bold that tbe court below is without power to bear and determine questions involved in an appeal pending in tbe Supreme Court. Combes v. Adams, 152 N. C., pp. 64-70; Greene v. Griffin, 95 N. C., 50; McRae v. Comrs., 74 N. C., 415; Bank v. Stilling, 32 S. C., 102.\nTbis will be certified, that tbe verdict and judgment rendered be set aside and a new trial bad.\nNew trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "IIoke, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "J. Lawrence Jones, Btewa/ri & McRae, Shannonhouse & Jones for plaintiff.", "Osborne, Coche & Robinson for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "M. L. PRUETT, Administrator, v. CHARLOTTE POWER COMPANY.\n(Filed 23 December, 1914.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u2014 Removal of Causes \u2014 Federal Courts \u2014 Order\u2014Refusing Removal.\nAn appeal presently lies from an order denying an application, upon proper petition and bond, to remove a cause to tlie Federal court for diversity of citizenship under the Federal removal act. \u2018\n2. Same \u2014 Trial Courts \u2014 New Trial \u2014 Interpretation of Statutes.\nWhere the defendant has filed a sufficient petition and bond for the removal of a cause, from the State to the Federal court on the ground of diversity of citizenship, and appeals from an order of the trial court refusing to remove the cause, the appeal involves the right of the State court to try the action, including in its scope all the issues presented in the record;, and pending the appeal it is error for the trial court.to proceed with the trial and determine these issues, over the objection of the defendant; and when this is done, and the appeal has regularly been prosecuted in accordance with the rules of law and practice regulating appeals, a new trial will be ordered, though the Supreme Court may have affirmed the order of the trial court, appealed from, retaining the cause. Revisal, sec. 602.\n3. Appeal and Error \u2014 Trial Courts \u2014 Proceedings Stayed \u2014 Interpretation of Statutes.\nAn appeal duly taken and regularly prosecuted operates as a stay of all proceedings in' the trial court, relating to the issues included therein, until the matters are determined in the Supreme Court. Revisal, sec. 602.\nAppeab by defendant from Adams, J., at-March Term, 1914, of Meck-lENbueg.\nCivil action to recover damages for death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate, caused by the alleged negligence of defendant company.\nThere was verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant excepted and appealed.\nJ. Lawrence Jones, Btewa/ri & McRae, Shannonhouse & Jones for plaintiff.\nOsborne, Coche & Robinson for defendant." }, "file_name": "0598-01", "first_page_order": 652, "last_page_order": 654 }