Cannon v. . Cannon

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Cannon v. . Cannon

39 S.E.2d 821, 226 N.C. 634, 1946 N.C. LEXIS 302

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 30, 1946

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 39 S.E.2d 821 (Cannon v. . Cannon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cannon v. . Cannon, 39 S.E.2d 821, 226 N.C. 634, 1946 N.C. LEXIS 302 (N.C. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Stagy, C. J.

It was said on the former appeal that the administration of the trust belongs in the first instance to the Trustees. They have not yet determined the value of the principal of the first trust shares; nor have they had sufficient time to do so. They have been in court all the while. The matters referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment were not properly before the court. No additional requests for instructions have come from the Trustees, and on the facts presently appearing of record, the movent is not supported in her position, as she seems to think, by the case of Mountain Park Institute v. Lovill, 198 N. C., 642, 153 S. E., 114. There, no suit had been brought to construe the will or for guidance in the administration of the trust, but the action was instituted by one of the beneficiaries to require performance or to enforce the trust.

It was also held on the former appeal that in the present state of the record the court was without authority to fix the value of the trust shares *637 or to entertain requests for instructions similar to those now sought by movent. “A decision by the Supreme Court oil a prior appeal constitutes the law of the case, both in subsequent proceedings in the trial court and on a subsequent appeal” — Headnote (6th), Harrington v. Rawls, 136 N. C., 65, 48 S. E., 57, cited with approval in numerous later cases, some of them collected in Robinson v. McAlhaney, 216 N. C., 674, 6 S. E. (2d), 517.

The trial court was doubtless misled in the matter by the way in which it was presented. No objection was interposed to his hearing the motion as filed, and indeed the appellants themselves first suggested something in addition to judgment on certificate of decision of Supreme Court G. S., 7-16. Whether this was in excess of the matters then before the court, we need not decide. Suffice it for present purposes to say authority is a prerequisite to judicial action. Jurisdiction is essential to a valid judgment. Stancill v. Gay, 92 N. C., 462.

Error and remanded.

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

Stagy, C. J.

It was said on the former appeal that the administration of the trust belongs in the first instance to the Trustees. They have not yet determined the value of the principal of the first trust shares; nor have they had sufficient time to do so. They have been in court all the while. The matters referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment were not properly before the court. No additional requests for instructions have come from the Trustees, and on the facts presently appearing of record, the movent is not supported in her position, as she seems to think, by the case of Mountain Park Institute v. Lovill, 198 N. C., 642, 153 S. E., 114. There, no suit had been brought to construe the will or for guidance in the administration of the trust, but the action was instituted by one of the beneficiaries to require performance or to enforce the trust.

It was also held on the former appeal that in the present state of the record the court was without authority to fix the value of the trust shares *637 or to entertain requests for instructions similar to those now sought by movent. “A decision by the Supreme Court oil a prior appeal constitutes the law of the case, both in subsequent proceedings in the trial court and on a subsequent appeal” — Headnote (6th), Harrington v. Rawls, 136 N. C., 65, 48 S. E., 57, cited with approval in numerous later cases, some of them collected in Robinson v. McAlhaney, 216 N. C., 674, 6 S. E. (2d), 517.

The trial court was doubtless misled in the matter by the way in which it was presented. No objection was interposed to his hearing the motion as filed, and indeed the appellants themselves first suggested something in addition to judgment on certificate of decision of Supreme Court G. S., 7-16. Whether this was in excess of the matters then before the court, we need not decide. Suffice it for present purposes to say authority is a prerequisite to judicial action. Jurisdiction is essential to a valid judgment. Stancill v. Gay, 92 N. C., 462.

Error and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 S.E.2d 821, 226 N.C. 634, 1946 N.C. LEXIS 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cannon-v-cannon-nc-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack