Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

107 N.C. 430

11 S.E 1089

Coor v. . Smith

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 5, 1890

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1890-09-05

This was a motion of the defendant, founded on his affidavit, to set aside and annul an order for a writ of Assistance, made and rendered in this action at January Term, 1890, of WayNE Superior Court, on motion of plaintiffs, the object of defendant’s motion being the restitution of the land of which he had been deprived under said writ. The motion was heard before MacRae, J., at March Term, 1890, of same Court.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-09-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently January 1968

8 state decisions

2018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

Clark, J.:

¶1 In Knight v. Houghtalling, 94 N. C., 408, it is held that- a writ of Assistance is never issued except “ upon notice to the person in possession,” and upon proof of a demand and refusal of possession, and that a presentation of the deed to the party is usually necessary, but is dispensed with when he is aware of it already.

¶2 It is found as a fact in the present case that there was a demand under the deed and a refusal of possession, also, that, though there was no notice of the motion served, the motion was made at the same term of the Court at which final judgment was rendered in the foreclosure proceedings by confirming the sale and directing the deed to be executed to plaintiff, and the counsel who had represented the defendant throughout those proceedings were present in Court when the motion and order for a writ of assistance were made, and raised no objection to the same. Though a final judgment does not terminate all connection of counsel with the case, notice of any motion made subsequent to that term of Court must be served on them. Allison v. Whittier, 101 N. C., 490; Branch v. Walker, 92 N. C., 87; Rogers v. McKenzie, 81 N. C., 164. But while the action is pending no actual notice is required, as all parties are presumed to have notice of all motions, orders and decrees made in the cause. Dawkins v. Dawkins, 93 N. C., 283; Williams v. Whiting, 94 N. C., 481; University v. Lassiter, 83 N. C., 38; Hemphill v. Moore, 104 N. C., 379. The motion here was made at the same term at which final judgment was rendered. During that term such judgment was still in fieri, and motions affecting the rights of the parties, - such as motions for new trial, or to set aside the verdict or the judg *432 ment, and many others, are constantly made without serving notice, and we see no reason why the same rule should not apply in this case. It is only when a motion is made subsequent to the term at which a final judgment is rendered that notice is exacted. The order having been made at the term when final judgment was rendered, the defendant had legal notice of what transpired.

¶3 Per Ouriam. No error.

/107/nc/430 · .json · Public domain