Freedle v. Moorefield

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Freedle v. Moorefield

194 S.E.2d 156, 17 N.C. App. 331, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1350

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 31, 1973

DocketNo. 7321SC55

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 194 S.E.2d 156 (Freedle v. Moorefield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Freedle v. Moorefield, 194 S.E.2d 156, 17 N.C. App. 331, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1350 (N.C. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

BRITT, Judge.

We think this case is controlled by Lee v. Rhodes, 227 N.C. 240, 41 S.E. 2d 747 (1947) and Highway Commission v. Rowson, 5 N.C. App. 629, 169 S.E. 2d 132 (1969). No worthwhile purpose would be served in repeating the reasoning and citing again the authorities set forth in those opinions.

Appropriate to this case are the following comments by Justice (later Chief Justice) Denny in Lee v. Rhodes, supra: “The conduct of the plaintiff, if considered in its most favorable light, does not appeal to the conscience of the Court. Even so, the record presents for our consideration and determination a question of law rather than one of ethics. ***... [The eourt] was without power to sign a judgment, based upon the consent of the parties, after one of the parties repudiated the agreement and had withdrawn his consent thereto.”

The judgment appealed from is vacated and this cause is remanded to the superior court for further proceedings.

Judgment vacated and cause remanded.

Judges Parker and Vaughn concur.

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

BRITT, Judge.

We think this case is controlled by Lee v. Rhodes, 227 N.C. 240, 41 S.E. 2d 747 (1947) and Highway Commission v. Rowson, 5 N.C. App. 629, 169 S.E. 2d 132 (1969). No worthwhile purpose would be served in repeating the reasoning and citing again the authorities set forth in those opinions.

Appropriate to this case are the following comments by Justice (later Chief Justice) Denny in Lee v. Rhodes, supra: “The conduct of the plaintiff, if considered in its most favorable light, does not appeal to the conscience of the Court. Even so, the record presents for our consideration and determination a question of law rather than one of ethics. ***... [The eourt] was without power to sign a judgment, based upon the consent of the parties, after one of the parties repudiated the agreement and had withdrawn his consent thereto.”

The judgment appealed from is vacated and this cause is remanded to the superior court for further proceedings.

Judgment vacated and cause remanded.

Judges Parker and Vaughn concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 S.E.2d 156, 17 N.C. App. 331, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freedle-v-moorefield-ncctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack