Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

216 N.C. 232

4 S.E.2d 447

Barber v. . Barber

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 27, 1939

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1939-09-27

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“An action in court is not ended by the rendition of a judgment, but in certain respects it is still pending until the judgment is satisfied. . . . Motion affecting the judgment but not the merits of the original controversy may be made in the cause. . . . This is particularly true of judgments ... in actions for alimony without divorce, in which it may not be said that the judgment is in all respects final. . . . Such actions are always open for motions in the cause. . . .”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 73 N.C. App. 639 - Hale v. Hale

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1939-09-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1990

12 state decisions

401939194019501960197019801990decided

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 →

Barnhill, J.

¶1 It is stipulated in the record that summons in the original cause was personally served on the defendant and it appears from the record that he made a general appearance and answered the plaintiff’s complaint. Can he now, on special appearance, challenge the jurisdiction of the court to hear plaintiff’s petition and motion in the cause? This is the only question presented and it must be answered in the negative.

¶2 An action in court is not ended by the rendition of a judgment, but in certain respects it is still pending until the judgment is satisfied. Finance Co. v. Trust Co., 213 N. C., 369, 196 S. E., 340. Motion affecting the judgment but not the merits of the original controversy may be made in the cause. Land Bank v. Davis, 215 N. C., 100. This is particularly true of judgments allowing alimony in divorce actions and in actions for alimony without divorce, in which it may not be said that the judgment is in all respects final. C. S., 1667. Such actions are always open for motions in the cause to determine the amount of arrearage and to obtain the remedies permitted by statute for the enforcement of the order for alimony. It was not required that a new summons be served upon the defendant. Notice of motion under the statute was sufficient. This notice was duly served.

¶3 It appears from this record, as stated, that the defendant is in court and is subject to its jurisdiction, on notice, to hear and determine motions in the cause. Want of jurisdiction of the court in such matters may not be challenged by special appearance. The right of the 'plaintiff to make the motion may not be thus questioned.

¶4 Perhaps defendant’s appeal was premature. In any event, only a question of procedure is presented. We do not decide the right of the plaintiff to the relief sought in her petition and motion. Nor do we determine the merits of the controversy arising thereon. We merely hold that, as the defendant has received due notice of a motion in the cause in which he had theretofore made a general appearance, he may *235 now defend only by general appearance, by answer or demurrer or appropriate motion. Tbe court below properly protected his right in this respect by granting time in which to plead in such manner as he may be advised.

¶5 The judgment below is

¶6 Affirmed.

/216/nc/232 · .json · Public domain