Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

104 N.C. 379

Hemphill v. Moore

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 15, 1889

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1889-09-15

Notice — Injunction—Relief Against Mistake or Inadvertence. This is an Appeal from a Restraining Order, granted by Philips, J., at Fall Term, 1889, of McDowell Superior Court. At the appearance term of the Court, the plaintiff filed his complaint and the defendant filed her answer thereto, and an order of reference was entered.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1889-09-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1953

5 state decisions

2018891890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Merrimon, C. J.-

¶1-after stating the case: It was suggested, on the argument- here, that this action was improvidently brought, because the plaintiff might have obtained the relief sought by it, and the motion in question, in a pending special proceeding. But no question in that respect is presented by the assignment of error, or by the record proper. The single ground of 'exception is, that the order granting the injunction was made without notice to the defendant.

¶2The statute (The Code, §340) prescribes that “an injunction should not be allowed after the defendant shall have answered, unless upon notice, or upon an order to show cause,” &c. In the present case, the defendant was in Court, and bound to take notice of what was done, pending the action, in its course in term-time, and she did actually appear, by her counsel, and resist the motion for an injunction. She had notice, and acted upon it. Sparrow v. Davidson, 77 N. C., 35; University v. Lassiter, 83 N. C., 38.

¶3Where a motion is made, in the course of an action, in term-time, and, by inadvertence or mistake, a party fails to take notice, as, regularly, he ought to do, the Court, upon application, might, and, in a proper case, should, in its discretion, grant the opposing party opportunity to be heard and make opposition, as the Court did offer to do in this case. If time to prepare to make opposition should be required *381and necessary, the Court might grant it. It is in case of motions and proceedings in an action out of term-time that a special notice to the adverse party must generally be given. But, in such cases, if the opposing party should appear, by himself or his counsel, he would, ordinarily, have been deemed to have taken actual notice and to have waived formal notice. The law intends to afford all parties to actions and proceedings just opportunity to be heard in all proper respects and on like occasions, whether they be plaintiffs or defendants, but it will not encourage obstinacy or a disposition in them to be merely vexatious in and about the litigation.

¶4There is no error in the order appealed from.

¶5Affirmed.

/104/nc/379 · .json · Public domain