City of Monroe v. Niven

20 S.E.2d 311, 221 N.C. 362, 1942 N.C. LEXIS 470
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMay 20, 1942
StatusPublished
Cited by51 cases

This text of 20 S.E.2d 311 (City of Monroe v. Niven) 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
City of Monroe v. Niven, 20 S.E.2d 311, 221 N.C. 362, 1942 N.C. LEXIS 470 (N.C. 1942).

Opinion

BaRNHill, J.

A void judgment is one which has a mere semblance but is lacking in some of the essential elements which would authorize the court to proceed to judgment. McIntosh P. & P., sec. 651, p. 734; Harrell v. Welstead, 206 N. C., 817, 175 S. E., 283.

Jurisdiction of the party, obtained by the court in some way allowed by law, is essential to enable the court to give a valid judgment against him. Stancill v. Gay, 92 N. C., 462; Guerin v. Guerin, 208 N. C., 457, 181 S. E., 274. When a court has no authority to act its acts are void. It is the service of process in some manner authorized .by law that causes the jurisdiction of the court to attach to and give the court control of the party thus brought into court.

When a court of general jurisdiction undertakes to grant a judgment in an action where it has not acquired jurisdiction of the parties by voluntary appearance or the service of process the judgment is absolutely void and has no effect. It may, therefore, be disregarded and treated as a nullity everywhere. It is coram, non judice. Copper Co. v. Marlin, 70 N. C., 300; Card v. Finch, 142 N. C., 140; Stancill v. Gay, supra; Guerin v. Guerin, supra; Dunn v. Wilson, 210 N. C., 493, 187 S. E., 802; Clark v. Homes, 189 N. C., 703, 128 S. E., 20; Harrell v. Welstead, supra; Johnson v. Whilden, 171 N. C., 153, 88 S. E., 225; Flowers v. King, 145 N. C., 234; Downing v. White, 211 N. C., 40, 188 S. E., 815, and cases cited. This is so because it is against natural justice as well as fundamental right to take judgment against a man without giving him an opportunity to defend himself and his right of property.

Where the record shows service or appearance when in fact there had been none the judgment is apparently regular though void in fact and the party affected must take appropriate action to correct the record. Doyle v. Brown, 72 N. C., 393. This is by motion in the cause. Harrell *365 v. Welstead, supra; Davis v. Brigman, 204 N. C., 680, 169 S. E., 421; Downing v. White, supra, and cases cited; Adams v. Cleve, 218 N. C., 302, 10 S. E. (2d), 911; Guerin v. Guerin, supra; Fowler v. Fowler, 190 N. C., 536, 130 S. E., 315.

A general appearance to move to vacate a void judgment does not validate a judgment rendered without service of process. “A nullity is a nullity, and out of nothing nothing comes. Ex nihilo nihil fit is one maxim that admits of no exception.” Harrell v. Welstead, supra; Chemical Co. v. Turner, 190 N. C., 471, 130 S. E., 154; Motor Co. v. Reaves, 184 N. C., 260, 114 S. E., 175; Michigan Central Railroad Co. v. Mix, 278 U. S., 492; 73 L. Ed., 470; 15 R. C. L., 700.

No proof or suggestion of merit is required. Flowers v. King, supra. Even so, the want of service is the meritorious defense. Adams v. Cleve, supra; 15 R. C. L., p. 700, sec. 152; p. 692, sec. 144.

Nor are movants barred by the lapse of time. “The passage of time, however great, does not affect the validity of a judgment; it cannot render a void judgment valid.” 31 Am. Jur., 66; Anno. 81 A. S. R., 559.

Hence, it follows that upon the facts found, to which appellees do not except, the court below erred in denying the motion of defendants. The judgment must be vacated of record.

The parties undertake to debate here the rights of the assignees of the purchasers at the foreclosure sale. It is asserted that the present owners are purchasers for value without notice and that as to them the judgment, being regular on its face, should stand.

These questions are not before us for discussion or decision. The motion is directed solely to the alleged invalidity of the judgment of foreclosure as against movants. This is all we decide. To what extent those who acquired paper title under the foreclosure judgment and the commissioner’s deed are protected by the apparent regularity of the judgment is a question which must be reserved for another clay and another action.

The judgment below is

Reversed.

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

Related

Slattery v. Appy City, LLC
Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2024
Jabari v. Jabari
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2022
Boseman v. Jarrell
704 S.E.2d 494 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2010)
Autry v. Autry
700 S.E.2d 141 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2010)
Woods v. Billy's Automotive
622 S.E.2d 193 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)
Jenkins v. Richmond County
394 S.E.2d 258 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1990)
Allred v. Tucci
354 S.E.2d 291 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1987)
Cole v. Cole
247 S.E.2d 16 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1978)
In re the Will of Burton
148 S.E.2d 862 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1966)
Russell v. BEA STAPLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
146 S.E.2d 459 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1966)
Cunningham v. Brigman
139 S.E.2d 353 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)
North State Finance Co. v. Leonard
139 S.E.2d 356 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)
Menzel v. Menzel
119 S.E.2d 147 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1961)
Howard v. Boyce
118 S.E.2d 897 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1961)
In Re the Will of Cox
118 S.E.2d 17 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1961)
Page v. Miller
113 S.E.2d 52 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)
Brown v. Owens
111 S.E.2d 705 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1959)
Columbus County v. Thompson
107 S.E.2d 302 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1959)
City of Hendersonville v. Salvation Army
102 S.E.2d 416 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1958)
Harrington v. Rice
97 S.E.2d 239 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 S.E.2d 311, 221 N.C. 362, 1942 N.C. LEXIS 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-monroe-v-niven-nc-1942.