Gorman v. . Yorke

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Gorman v. . Yorke

199 S.E. 729, 214 N.C. 524, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 394

DecidedNovember 30, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 199 S.E. 729 (Gorman v. . Yorke) 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

Gorman v. . Yorke, 199 S.E. 729, 214 N.C. 524, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 394 (N.C. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

*525 Pee Cueiam.

Keferring to the matters considered by the court in reaching its conclusion and denying appellant’s motion, the court below said: “Upon the argument of the motion to set aside the judgment by default and inquiry, the defendant Lee Horton took the position that any acts or neglect of the Maryland Casualty Company, or the defendant Mrs. Yorke, did not affect his rights under said motion and were not material to be considered by the court in connection therewith. The court ruled, however, that such acts and neglect were material and took such matters in consideration in its finding that there was no excusable neglect, to which defendant Lee Horton duly excepted.”

The defendant’s exception must be sustained, and the cause remanded for proper findings of fact, eliminating therefrom consideration of acts and negligence of other parties not material to the motion of the appealing defendant.

Error and remanded.

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

*525 Pee Cueiam.

Keferring to the matters considered by the court in reaching its conclusion and denying appellant’s motion, the court below said: “Upon the argument of the motion to set aside the judgment by default and inquiry, the defendant Lee Horton took the position that any acts or neglect of the Maryland Casualty Company, or the defendant Mrs. Yorke, did not affect his rights under said motion and were not material to be considered by the court in connection therewith. The court ruled, however, that such acts and neglect were material and took such matters in consideration in its finding that there was no excusable neglect, to which defendant Lee Horton duly excepted.”

The defendant’s exception must be sustained, and the cause remanded for proper findings of fact, eliminating therefrom consideration of acts and negligence of other parties not material to the motion of the appealing defendant.

Error and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 S.E. 729, 214 N.C. 524, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gorman-v-yorke-nc-1938.