Edney v. . Matthews

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Edney v. . Matthews

10 S.E.2d 619, 218 N.C. 171, 1940 N.C. LEXIS 115

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 18, 1940

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 10 S.E.2d 619 (Edney v. . Matthews) 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

Edney v. . Matthews, 10 S.E.2d 619, 218 N.C. 171, 1940 N.C. LEXIS 115 (N.C. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

As was said in Fisher v. Trust Co., 138 N. C., 90, 50 S. E., 592, the proceedings herein have been “somewhat- eccentric and irregular.” A special proceeding before the clerk, instituted by the personal representative of a decedent to sell land to make assets, is, by consent, converted into an administration suit and heard by the judge. C. S., 135. Rigsbee v. Brogden, 209 N. C., 510, 184 S. E., 24. If the parties are content to proceed in this way, perhaps the court ought not to object sua sponie. Its jurisdiction is not questioned. Tillett v. Aydlett, 93 N. C., 15.

There is objection, however, on the part of the petitioner, to the order requiring that she come in and account for certain moneys paid to her individually or as the widow of the deceased. On the record facts, the objection would seem to be untenable. C. S., 547. The apparent conversion of the proceeding, by consent, into an administration suit did not render it a controversy without action, C. S., 626, wherein the authority of the court is limited or confined to the matters submitted. Waters v. Boyd, 179 N. C., 180, 102 S. E., 196.

Objections are also made to several items in the account and to the findings of the court in respect thereof. These objections cannot avail in the face of the stipulation of the parties. It would serve no useful purpose to deal with them seriatim.

Upon the record as presented, the judgment of the Superior Court will not be disturbed.

Affirmed.

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

Stacy, C. J.

As was said in Fisher v. Trust Co., 138 N. C., 90, 50 S. E., 592, the proceedings herein have been “somewhat- eccentric and irregular.” A special proceeding before the clerk, instituted by the personal representative of a decedent to sell land to make assets, is, by consent, converted into an administration suit and heard by the judge. C. S., 135. Rigsbee v. Brogden, 209 N. C., 510, 184 S. E., 24. If the parties are content to proceed in this way, perhaps the court ought not to object sua sponie. Its jurisdiction is not questioned. Tillett v. Aydlett, 93 N. C., 15.

There is objection, however, on the part of the petitioner, to the order requiring that she come in and account for certain moneys paid to her individually or as the widow of the deceased. On the record facts, the objection would seem to be untenable. C. S., 547. The apparent conversion of the proceeding, by consent, into an administration suit did not render it a controversy without action, C. S., 626, wherein the authority of the court is limited or confined to the matters submitted. Waters v. Boyd, 179 N. C., 180, 102 S. E., 196.

Objections are also made to several items in the account and to the findings of the court in respect thereof. These objections cannot avail in the face of the stipulation of the parties. It would serve no useful purpose to deal with them seriatim.

Upon the record as presented, the judgment of the Superior Court will not be disturbed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 S.E.2d 619, 218 N.C. 171, 1940 N.C. LEXIS 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edney-v-matthews-nc-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack