Barringer & Gaither, Inc. v. Whittenton

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Barringer & Gaither, Inc. v. Whittenton

206 S.E.2d 301, 22 N.C. App. 316, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2313

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJuly 3, 1974

Docket7425DC357

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 206 S.E.2d 301 (Barringer & Gaither, Inc. v. Whittenton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barringer & Gaither, Inc. v. Whittenton, 206 S.E.2d 301, 22 N.C. App. 316, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2313 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

BROCK, Chief Judge.

Defendants contend the purported judgment is void because a separate order was not entered directing the clerk to file Judge Sigmon’s judgment and because no notice of the filing was given to defendants by the clerk.

It would seem that defendants are contending that not only must a trial judge sign a judgment when not rendered in open court, but he must also prepare a separate order directing the clerk to file the judgment which he has signed. In our view, the signing of a judgment by the trial judge requires no further directive. It is the clerk’s duty to file such judgment. The third paragraph of Rule 58, relied upon by plaintiff, applies to instances where the trial judge directs the clerk to prepare and file judgment. It is inapplicable when the trial judge prepares and signs the judgment.

The record discloses that the trial court made findings of fact and concluded as a matter of law that plaintiff was entitled to the amount prayed for less a set-off for improperly installed equipment. The judgment was signed by the trial judge and filed by counsel for the plaintiff with the clerk. Simultaneously, counsel for the plaintiff filed a certificate of service certifying that service of the judgment had been made upon defendants by mailing a true copy of the same. The defendants do not deny the receipt of the copy of judgment.

Rule 58 is designed to achieve the objectives of (1) making the moment of the entry of judgment easily identifiable, and (2) furnishing fair notice to all parties of the entry of the judgment. These objectives were clearly achieved by the actions of counsel for the plaintiff.

For the reasons stated, the judgment was properly entered, and effective notice of the filing of the judgment was afforded to defendants by the mailing to counsel of a true copy of the judgment. In the absence of a finding of any prejudice to de *318 fendants, the order denying defendants’ motion to vacate the judgment is

Affirmed.

Judges Britt and Baley concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BROCK, Chief Judge.

Defendants contend the purported judgment is void because a separate order was not entered directing the clerk to file Judge Sigmon’s judgment and because no notice of the filing was given to defendants by the clerk.

It would seem that defendants are contending that not only must a trial judge sign a judgment when not rendered in open court, but he must also prepare a separate order directing the clerk to file the judgment which he has signed. In our view, the signing of a judgment by the trial judge requires no further directive. It is the clerk’s duty to file such judgment. The third paragraph of Rule 58, relied upon by plaintiff, applies to instances where the trial judge directs the clerk to prepare and file judgment. It is inapplicable when the trial judge prepares and signs the judgment.

The record discloses that the trial court made findings of fact and concluded as a matter of law that plaintiff was entitled to the amount prayed for less a set-off for improperly installed equipment. The judgment was signed by the trial judge and filed by counsel for the plaintiff with the clerk. Simultaneously, counsel for the plaintiff filed a certificate of service certifying that service of the judgment had been made upon defendants by mailing a true copy of the same. The defendants do not deny the receipt of the copy of judgment.

Rule 58 is designed to achieve the objectives of (1) making the moment of the entry of judgment easily identifiable, and (2) furnishing fair notice to all parties of the entry of the judgment. These objectives were clearly achieved by the actions of counsel for the plaintiff.

For the reasons stated, the judgment was properly entered, and effective notice of the filing of the judgment was afforded to defendants by the mailing to counsel of a true copy of the judgment. In the absence of a finding of any prejudice to de *318 fendants, the order denying defendants’ motion to vacate the judgment is

Affirmed.

Judges Britt and Baley concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 S.E.2d 301, 22 N.C. App. 316, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barringer-gaither-inc-v-whittenton-ncctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack