Hartsoe v. Southern Railway Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Hartsoe v. Southern Railway Co.

76 S.E. 684, 161 N.C. 215, 1912 N.C. LEXIS 398

DecidedDecember 14, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 76 S.E. 684 (Hartsoe v. Southern Railway Co.) 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

Hartsoe v. Southern Railway Co., 76 S.E. 684, 161 N.C. 215, 1912 N.C. LEXIS 398 (N.C. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PeR Curiam.

In this case the jury found for their verdict thát the plaintiff was injured by the negligence of the defendant, and that the Southern Railway Company was primarily liable and that plaintiffs were entitled to recover $1,500 damages. The following judgment was rendered:

“Ordered by consent of plaintiffs and Southern Railway Company, and adjudged, that the plaintiffs recover of the defendant the Southern Railway Company first and primarily the sum of $1,000 and costs of action, the amount of the recovery being, by consent of the Southern Railway Company and the plaintiffs, reduced to said sum, and in the event of the failure of the plaintiff to recover said sum out of the defendant the Southern Railway Company, then the plaintiffs shall recover the said sum of $1,000 out of the defendant the City of Hickory, together with the costs of the action.”

It is made to appear to the Court, and is admitted, that the Southern Railway Company subsequently paid the $1,000 to the plaintiff and took an assignment of the judgment to a trustee for its benefit. The appeal of both the Southern Railway and the city of Hickory must be dismissed. The judgment of record is a consent judgment, and not merely to the reduction thereof to $1,000, which reduction would not require the assent of the Southern Railway Company, but there is consent to the judgment itself. No appeal can be sustained from a consent judgment.

The appeal of that company being dismissed, there is no ground on which to entertain the appeal of the city of Hickory, which was improvidently taken. Besides, the Court would not discuss the proposition involved in this appeal simply to determine the matter of costs of the appeal, the subject-matter thereof having been terminated by payment of. the judgment. Herring v. Pugh, 125 N. C., 437, and cases cited.

As to both defendants let it be entered,

Appeal dismissed.

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

PeR Curiam.

In this case the jury found for their verdict thát the plaintiff was injured by the negligence of the defendant, and that the Southern Railway Company was primarily liable and that plaintiffs were entitled to recover $1,500 damages. The following judgment was rendered:

“Ordered by consent of plaintiffs and Southern Railway Company, and adjudged, that the plaintiffs recover of the defendant the Southern Railway Company first and primarily the sum of $1,000 and costs of action, the amount of the recovery being, by consent of the Southern Railway Company and the plaintiffs, reduced to said sum, and in the event of the failure of the plaintiff to recover said sum out of the defendant the Southern Railway Company, then the plaintiffs shall recover the said sum of $1,000 out of the defendant the City of Hickory, together with the costs of the action.”

It is made to appear to the Court, and is admitted, that the Southern Railway Company subsequently paid the $1,000 to the plaintiff and took an assignment of the judgment to a trustee for its benefit. The appeal of both the Southern Railway and the city of Hickory must be dismissed. The judgment of record is a consent judgment, and not merely to the reduction thereof to $1,000, which reduction would not require the assent of the Southern Railway Company, but there is consent to the judgment itself. No appeal can be sustained from a consent judgment.

The appeal of that company being dismissed, there is no ground on which to entertain the appeal of the city of Hickory, which was improvidently taken. Besides, the Court would not discuss the proposition involved in this appeal simply to determine the matter of costs of the appeal, the subject-matter thereof having been terminated by payment of. the judgment. Herring v. Pugh, 125 N. C., 437, and cases cited.

As to both defendants let it be entered,

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 S.E. 684, 161 N.C. 215, 1912 N.C. LEXIS 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartsoe-v-southern-railway-co-nc-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack