Dunn v. . Taylor
This text of 121 S.E. 659 (Dunn v. . Taylor) 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.
Opinion
The December Term of court ended in Kinston when the judge left the bench for the term, although no notice was given of the final adjournment, and it was understood that the term of court should expire by limitation. Delafield v. Const. Co., 115 N. C., 21; Branch v. Walker, 92 N. C., 87. His Honor, therefore, was without authority to enter the order, signed at his home in Clinton, canceling or vacating the judgment previously rendered by him at term. The plaintiff’s exception to this order must be sustained; but this will be done without prejudice to the rights of the defendant to assail the judgment rendered at the December term, or to have it vacated by motion in the cause or other appropriate remedy.
Error.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
121 S.E. 659, 187 N.C. 385, 1924 N.C. LEXIS 293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-v-taylor-nc-1924.