Childs v. . Martin .

69 N.C. 126
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided June 5, 1873·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinion

Pearson, C. J.

“The rule is where there are Courts of equal and concurrent jurisdiction, the Court posseses the ease in which jurisdiction first -attaches.” Merrill v. Lake, 16 Ohio, 373.

*127 This rule is so consonant with reason, and the necessity for such a rule in order to prevent confusion and conflict of jurisdiction is so obvious, that further comment is unnecessary, and we will simply refer as a matter, within the knowledge of every member of the profession, to the deplorable •Condition of things in the State of New York, resulting from a violation of this rule exhibited in the newspapers under the title of the Erie Row.”

The Judge of the Superior Court of the county of New Hanover'was possessed of the case. Suppose the judgment before him was obtained by a fraudulent combination and ■contrivance between the bondholders and the President and ■directors of the Wilmington, 'Charlotte and Rutherford Railroad Company, the plaintiffs in this action were at liberty to make themselves parties to the action in New Hanover, and to ask as “a motion in the cause” to have the judgment reheard, and in the meantime for a swpersedias of the order of sale. (

Instead of pursuing this regular and orderly mode of proceeding, the plaintiffs in this action adopt the erratic and unprecedented course (except that exhibited in the “Erie Row”) of bringing another action before the Judge of the Superior Court of the county of Mecklenburg, and actually obtain an injunction not only against the parties to the action in the¡ Superior Court of New Hanover but against the commissioners appointed by that Court, and ordered to make sale, and the result is this, if the commissioners obey the order of the Superior Court of New Hanover they are in contempt of the Superior Court of Mecklenburg, and if they obey the order of the latter Court, there is a contempt in regard to^thejformer. “ Jtedudio ad absurdum.”

The order appealed from is reversed, as improvidently granted, and the action is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. This opinion will be certified.

Pee Cueiam. Order reversed and action dismissed.

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

Childs v. . Martin ., 69 N.C. 126 (N.C. 1873).

69 N.C. 126 (Childs v. . Martin .) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Clayton
111 S.E.2d 299 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1959)
State v. Parker
66 S.E.2d 907 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1951)
Robbins v. . Robbins
50 S.E.2d 183 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
Massengill v. . Lee
44 S.E.2d 356 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1947)
Allen v. Allemania Fire Insurance
197 S.E. 200 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Worth v. Piedmont Bank of Morganton
28 S.E. 488 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
Long v. . Jarratt
94 N.C. 443 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1886)
State v. . Williford
91 N.C. 529 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1884)
Hurst v. Everett
21 F. 218 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western North Carolina, 1884)
Young v. . Rollins
85 N.C. 485 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1881)
Haywood v. . Haywood
79 N.C. 42 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1878)
State v. Atlantic & North Carolina Railroad
77 N.C. 299 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1877)
Gray v. . R. R.
77 N.C. 299 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1877)
In Re Schenck
74 N.C. 607 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1876)
Smith v. . the City of Newbern
73 N.C. 303 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1875)