Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

125 N.C. 383

34 S.E 446

Henderson v. . Moore

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 5, 1899

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1899-12-05

Civil, ActioN to correct a former judgment of tbe Court, and to stay the execution in the meantime, heard before Shaiu, J., at Fall Term, 1899, of Wilkes Superior Court. Sarah Moore had sued one N. 0. Anderson in the Justice’s (Hurt for a steer, and recovered judgment against Anderson, who appealed to the Superior Court, and gave Henderson as security on the bond to stay execution in sum of $25.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1899-12-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 1980

5 state decisions

101899190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

*384 Eaiecloth, C. J.

¶1 The defendant in 1896 obtained a judgment against N. 0. Anderson on appeal from the court of a Justice of the Peace. The plaintiff was one of the sureties on the appeal bond, who' now alleges that the judgment was for an amount in excess of his liability on said appeal bond, and seeks injunctive relief against an execution issued on the said judgment.

¶2 Every judgment of a court, having jurisdiction, is presumed to have been entered agreeably to law, and until reversed or vacated, is binding on all parties to the action. Idiots, lunatics, etc., are no exception to the rule. Brittain v. Mull, 99 N. C., 483, 492. If a judgment is erroneous, that is, contrary to law, the remedy is by an appeal. If it be irregular, that is, contrary to the course and practice of the court, the remedy is by a motion in the cause made within a .reasonable time. Foard v. Alexander, 64 N. C., 69; Neville v. Pope, 95 N. C., 346; Ward v. Lowndes, 96 N. C., 367. A court of equity does not act on the ground that a judgment at law is erroneous or irregular, when jurisdiction exists and no fraud is alleged, but it proceeds upon its own conscientious view of the merits of the matter presented.

¶3 The plaintiff in this case did not appeal to correct an error, if any was committed, nor move in the action in which judgment was entered to correct any irregularity, if there was any. He has simply misconceived his proper remedy.

¶4 Affirmed.

/125/nc/383 · .json · Public domain