Crabtree v. . Scheelky

25 S.E. 707, 119 N.C. 56

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: September 5, 1896
• Status: Published

Opinion

Clark, J.:

The finding of fact that the land at the sale under judicial decree brought a full and fair price is not reviewable on appeal. Trull v. Rice, 92 N. C., 572; Clark’s Code, (2d Ed.,) pp. 567, 568, and Supp. to same, p. So.

The consent order that judgment of confirmation might be entered up in vacation and outside the county was valid. Skinner v. Terry, 107 N. C., 103; Bank v. Gil mer, 118 N. C., 668. The íurther agreement that motion for such judgment might, be made either before the judge riding the district or the resident judge thereof, upon ten days’ notice of the time, place and judge, was likewise valid. The resident judge had general jurisdiction, and his exercising it in this case was not a defect of jurisdiction, which cannot be conferred by consent, but an objection to the venue, which is waived unless objected to. The parties having consented to the resident judge hearing the motion cannot be heard to except. The Act of 1883, Ch. 33, now The Code, Sec. 337, expressly provides that such consent orders may be made as to injunctions, Hamilton v. Icard, 112 N. C., 589; but we take it that consent orders, waiving objections to the venue, when a court has general jurisdiction of the subject-matter, are valid, independent of that statute, and applicable in all cases. Practically, this must often be a convenience to suitors and counsel and, as such course can only be taken by consent, we cannot see that any hardship therefrom is likely to arise.

No Error.