Harris v. Chapman

77 S.E.2d 658, 238 N.C. 308, 1953 N.C. LEXIS 421
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided September 30, 1953·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Tbe showing made by tbe defendant on bis motion meets tbe requirements for a new trial for newly discovered evidence. Tbe motion is allowed. See Chrisco v. Yow, 153 N.C. 434, top p. 436, 69 S.E. 422; Moore v. Tidwell, 193 N.C. 855, 138 S.E. 407. Tbis renders moot tbe questions presented by tbe appeal and restores tbe status quo as it existed immediately before tbe bearing before Judge Bone. Tbe cause will be remanded for hearing de no.vo on defendant’s motion (1) to set aside tbe judgment by default and inquiry entered by tbe Clerk, (2) to set aside tbe final judgment entered at tbe February Term, 1953, and (3) for leave to defend under tbe provisions of G.S. 1-108; and it is so ordered. See Franklin v. School, 213 N.C. 263, 195 S.E. 792. Let tbe defendant pay tbe costs. Herndon v. Railroad Co., 121 N.C. 498, 28 S.E. 144.

Tbe plaintiff’s motion to dismiss under Eule 28 is denied.

Eemanded.

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

Harris v. Chapman, 77 S.E.2d 658, 238 N.C. 308, 1953 N.C. LEXIS 421 (N.C. 1953).

77 S.E.2d 658 (Harris v. Chapman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Herndon v. North Carolina Railroad
28 S.E. 144 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
Chrisco v. . Yow
69 S.E. 422 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1910)
Franklin v. Crossnore School
195 S.E. 792 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Moore v. . Tidwell
138 S.E. 407 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1927)