Hahn v. . Mosely

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Hahn v. . Mosely

25 S.E. 713, 119 N.C. 73

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 5, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 25 S.E. 713 (Hahn v. . Mosely) 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

Hahn v. . Mosely, 25 S.E. 713, 119 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

OlaRK, J. :

The object of the statute, The Code, Sec. 433, requiring an index and cross-index of judgments, is stated in Dewey v. Sugg, 109 N. C., 328, 334, to be that “ the inquirer is not required to look through the whole docket to learn if there be a judgment against a particular person. When there are several judgment debtors in a docketed judgment the index should and must specify the name of each one, because the index as to one would not point to all or any one of the others.” The docketing creates a lien, and the index and cross index are provided to facili *76 tate the search for snch incumbrances, and hence the name of each defendant must be indexed, (Redmond v. Staton, 116 N. C., 140,) but as to the plaintiffs, it is sufficient that one name appear, since that indicates the case in which the incumbrance accrued by judgment against the specified defendant, and by turning to the judgment recorded or the judgment roll in such case the full nature and extent of the judgment will appear. It could serve no purpose to index the names of additional plaintiffs in the same judgment, when there is more than one. In the present instance the index and cross-index showed that a judgment had been docketed in favor of Simmons & Manly against Forbes and the other defendants named. Had the defendant in this action turned to that judgment as recorded, he would have found its scope and purport and amounts recovered therein and to whom payable. He is fixed with notice of all that an examination of snch judgment, itself would have disclosed. Though recoveries were adjudged divers parties and for different amounts, they were all embraced in the same judgment,-and by vir ne of such judgment alone were liens on the property of the defendants therein named. The administrator is not entitled to be reimbursed the taxes and insurance, for these were volunteer payments on his part, but the decree should be reformed below to allow him commissions on so much of the proceeds of the sales of realty as is neces-sarjr to be paid on the plaintiff’s judgment.

Modified and Affirmed.

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

OlaRK, J. :

The object of the statute, The Code, Sec. 433, requiring an index and cross-index of judgments, is stated in Dewey v. Sugg, 109 N. C., 328, 334, to be that “ the inquirer is not required to look through the whole docket to learn if there be a judgment against a particular person. When there are several judgment debtors in a docketed judgment the index should and must specify the name of each one, because the index as to one would not point to all or any one of the others.” The docketing creates a lien, and the index and cross index are provided to facili *76 tate the search for snch incumbrances, and hence the name of each defendant must be indexed, (Redmond v. Staton, 116 N. C., 140,) but as to the plaintiffs, it is sufficient that one name appear, since that indicates the case in which the incumbrance accrued by judgment against the specified defendant, and by turning to the judgment recorded or the judgment roll in such case the full nature and extent of the judgment will appear. It could serve no purpose to index the names of additional plaintiffs in the same judgment, when there is more than one. In the present instance the index and cross-index showed that a judgment had been docketed in favor of Simmons & Manly against Forbes and the other defendants named. Had the defendant in this action turned to that judgment as recorded, he would have found its scope and purport and amounts recovered therein and to whom payable. He is fixed with notice of all that an examination of snch judgment, itself would have disclosed. Though recoveries were adjudged divers parties and for different amounts, they were all embraced in the same judgment,-and by vir ne of such judgment alone were liens on the property of the defendants therein named. The administrator is not entitled to be reimbursed the taxes and insurance, for these were volunteer payments on his part, but the decree should be reformed below to allow him commissions on so much of the proceeds of the sales of realty as is neces-sarjr to be paid on the plaintiff’s judgment.

Modified and Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 S.E. 713, 119 N.C. 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hahn-v-mosely-nc-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack