Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

111 N.C. 324

16 S.E 173

Harper v. . Sugg

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 5, 1892

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1892-09-05

This was a civil ACTION for the recovery of personal property, tried by Winston, J., at the April Term, 1892, of Greene Superior Court. At November Term, 1891, an order was made referring the ease to a referee to hear and determine the issues involved, and a report was accordingly submitted to the next term of the Court (in January, 1892); and there being no exceptions to the report, it was confirmed, and judgment rendered in favor of the defendant.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-09-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1971

3 state decisions

10189219001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 The action of the Court below was erroneous, certainly on the first of the grounds specified by the appellant.

¶2*327 While all orders and judgments are in fieri during the term at which they are made, and may be modified or set aside at such term without notice, after such term a final judgment cannot be set aside except upon notice given. Branch v. Walker, 92 N. C., 87; Allison v. Whittier, 101 N. C., 490; Coor v. Smith, 107 N. C., 430. This is but right and just. A judgment is finis litium, and parties are not required thereafter to keep counsel on hand at the succeeding terms of the Court lest an order affecting the judgment should be made. When notice of a motion is necessary, the statute prescribes that it must be served ten days before the time appointed for the hearing, though the Judge may, by an order to show cause, prescribe a shorter time. The Code, § 595. This was not done here. The notice was given verbally, and the appellant might, if he had chosen, have added this as a fifth ground of exception. The Code, § 597. It was given on the very day the motion was heard, and doubtless the appellant was deprived of oppor- ' tunity to file counter-affidavits. The appellee was fixed with notice of the judgment taken at the preceding term (University v. Lassiter, 83 N. C., 38; Hemphill v. Moore, 104 N. C., 379); besides his affidavit sets out that he had actual notice. He had ample opportunity, and should have served legal notice in proper time of his intention to move to set the judgment aside so that the opposite party might have been prepared to meet him. This renders it unnecessary to consider the other assignments of error. As the case does not go off on the merits, the appellee is not deprived of the right to renew the motion upon proper notice, if within the time prescribed by the statute. The Code, § 274.

¶3 Per Curiam. Error.

/111/nc/324 · .json · Public domain