Guy v. . Harmon

167 S.E. 796, 204 N.C. 226, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 368
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 22, 1933
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 167 S.E. 796 (Guy v. . Harmon) 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
Guy v. . Harmon, 167 S.E. 796, 204 N.C. 226, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 368 (N.C. 1933).

Opinion

BbogdeN, J.

Manifestly the interest of Yirgie Harmon and ber husband, Tom Harmon, in the land has been properly divested, because the judgment is conclusive upon the said defendants to the extent of any interest they may have in the land.

The minor owners of the land were not made parties to the suit unless newspaper publication be sufficient for such purpose. Foreclosure is an equitable proceeding and the law as interpreted and applied in this State, has uniformly commanded a day in court for parties in interest. Gammon v. Johnson, 126 N. C., 64, 35 S. E., 185; Jones v. Williams, 155 N. C., 179, 71 S. E., 222; Madison County v. Coxe, ante, 58. Indeed, this Court in Hines v. Williams, 198 N. C., 420, 152 S. E., 39, in approving a judgment divesting the interest of minors in a tax foreclosure, declared: “It appears that the infant defendants and all persons having* a vested or contingent interest in the land have had their day in court.”

The plaintiff is not saved by the application of the principles enunciated in Orange County v. Wilson, 202 N. C., 425, 163 S. E., 13, for the reason the trustees of petitioners “were parties defendant and were served with process.”

Modified and Affirmed.

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

Related

Beneficial Mortgage Co. of North Carolina, Inc. v. Barrington & Jones Law Firm, P.A.
595 S.E.2d 705 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2004)
BENEFICIAL MORTGAGE CO. OF NORTH CAROLINA INC. v. Barrington
595 S.E.2d 705 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2004)
Collins v. R. L. Coleman & Co.
137 S.E.2d 803 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)
Page v. Miller
113 S.E.2d 52 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)
Travis v. Johnston
95 S.E.2d 94 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
Eason v. Spence
61 S.E.2d 717 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
Riddick v. . Davis
16 S.E.2d 662 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1941)
Hill v. . Street
1 S.E.2d 850 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
Beaufort County v. . Mayo
176 S.E. 753 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Buncombe County v. . Penland
173 S.E. 609 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
County of Buncombe v. Penland
206 N.C. 299 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Lockridge v. Smith
206 N.C. 174 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
County of Buncombe v. Arbogast
172 S.E. 364 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Street v. . Hildebrand
171 S.E. 58 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
167 S.E. 796, 204 N.C. 226, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guy-v-harmon-nc-1933.