# Brown Ex Rel. Brown v. S. H. Kress & Co.

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · January 28, 1935 · 207 N.C. 722

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3677208

## Case

- **Full name:** DOROTHY RICKMAN BROWN, by Her Next Friend, GEORGE C. BROWN, v. S. H. KRESS & COMPANY and B. A. MARSHALL
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** January 28, 1935
- **Citations:** 207 N.C. 722; 178 S.E. 248; 1935 N.C. LEXIS 250
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** PER CURIAM.
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3677208

## Opinion text

Per Curiam.
Tbe appellant failed to file any appeal bond, and also failed to file twenty-five printed or mimeographed copies of her brief, ■ but did file seven typewritten copies thereof.
While tbe judgment appealed from contains the following: “It further appearing to tbe court that tbe plaintiff is without property or other means of giving security for costs on appeal, . . . it is further ordered that tbe plaintiff be and she is hereby allowed to appeal
in forma pauperis”
it appears that appellant failed to “make affidavit that be (she) is unable by reason of bis (her) poverty to give tbe security required by law, and that be (she) is advised by counsel learned in tbe law that there is error in matter of law in tbe decision of tbe Superior Court in said action,” as required by C. S., 649, for appeals
in forma pauperis.
Tbe requirements of tbe statute being jurisdictional, tbe appellant was not relieved by tbe provision in tbe judgment of tbe court from filing tbe undertaking made necessary by C. S., 646, to render an appeal effectual, or from filing tbe twenty-five printed or mimeographed copies of her brief required by Eule 22 of this Court. “Giving-bond on appeal, or tbe granting leave to appeal without bond, are jurisdictional, and, unless tbe statute is complied with, tbe appeal is not in this Court, and we can take no cognizance of tbe case, except to dismiss it from our docket.”
Honeycutt v. Watkins,
151 N. C., 652 . In
Waller v. Dudley,
193 N. C., 354 , we found it necessary to say: “We again call tbe attention of tbe profession to tbe fact that tbe rules governing appeals are mandatory and not directory. Tbe Court has not only found it necessary to adopt them, but equally necessary to enforce them and to enforce them uniformly.”
However, a perusal of tbe record filed here leaves with us tbe impression that this case is governed by
Rea v. Mirror Co.,
158 N. C., 24 , and that bis Honor was correct in bolding, upon tbe defendant’s petition, that it should be removed to tbe Federal Court, where, of course, tbe plaintiff would have
the
right
to
traverse tbe petition upon a
motion to
remand.
Appeal dismissed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3677208. Public record. Not legal advice.