Coor v. . Smith

11 S.E. 1089, 107 N.C. 430
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 5, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 11 S.E. 1089 (Coor v. . Smith) 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
Coor v. . Smith, 11 S.E. 1089, 107 N.C. 430 (N.C. 1890).

Opinion

Clark, J.:

In Knight v. Houghtalling, 94 N. C., 408, it is held that- a writ of Assistance is never issued except “ upon notice to the person in possession,” and upon proof of a demand and refusal of possession, and that a presentation of the deed to the party is usually necessary, but is dispensed with when he is aware of it already.

It is found as a fact in the present case that there was a demand under the deed and a refusal of possession, also, that, though there was no notice of the motion served, the motion was made at the same term of the Court at which final judgment was rendered in the foreclosure proceedings by confirming the sale and directing the deed to be executed to plaintiff, and the counsel who had represented the defendant throughout those proceedings were present in Court when the motion and order for a writ of assistance were made, and raised no objection to the same. Though a final judgment does not terminate all connection of counsel with the case, notice of any motion made subsequent to that term of Court must be served on them. Allison v. Whittier, 101 N. C., 490; Branch v. Walker, 92 N. C., 87; Rogers v. McKenzie, 81 N. C., 164. But while the action is pending no actual notice is required, as all parties are presumed to have notice of all motions, orders and decrees made in the cause. Dawkins v. Dawkins, 93 N. C., 283; Williams v. Whiting, 94 N. C., 481; University v. Lassiter, 83 N. C., 38; Hemphill v. Moore, 104 N. C., 379. The motion here was made at the same term at which final judgment was rendered. During that term such judgment was still in fieri, and motions affecting the rights of the parties, - such as motions for new trial, or to set aside the verdict or the judg *432 ment, and many others, are constantly made without serving notice, and we see no reason why the same rule should not apply in this case. It is only when a motion is made subsequent to the term at which a final judgment is rendered that notice is exacted. The order having been made at the term when final judgment was rendered, the defendant had legal notice of what transpired.

Per Ouriam. No error.

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

Related

Hardware Dealers Mutual Fire Insurance v. Sheek
158 S.E.2d 635 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1968)
Henderson v. Henderson
59 S.E.2d 227 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
Harris v. . Board of Education
7 S.E.2d 538 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Gower v. Town of Clayton
199 S.E. 77 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Burns Ex Rel. Burns v. North State Laundry, Inc.
167 S.E. 573 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
Coleman v. . McCullough
130 S.E. 508 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Bank v. . Leverette
123 S.E. 68 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)
Southern State Bank v. Leverette
187 N.C. 743 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)
Jones v. . Jones
91 S.E. 960 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)
Wooten v. S. R. Biggs Drug Co.
85 S.E. 140 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1915)
Hardy v. Hardy.
38 S.E. 815 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1901)
Jackson v. Fulton
87 Mo. App. 228 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1901)
Ferrell v. . Hales
25 S.E. 821 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1896)
Piedmont Wagon Co. v. Byrd
26 S.E. 144 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1896)
Exum v. . Baker
20 S.E. 448 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1894)
Zimmerman v. Zimmerman
113 N.C. 432 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1893)
Harper v. . Sugg
16 S.E. 173 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 S.E. 1089, 107 N.C. 430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coor-v-smith-nc-1890.