Hopkins v. . Crisp

81 S.E. 1069, 166 N.C. 97, 1914 N.C. LEXIS 350

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: May 30, 1914
• Status: Published

Opinion

BeowN, J.

It is admitted that the plaintiffs have shown title in themselves, unless the defendant, Harvey Crisp, has shown title by color and adverse possession. We think the evidence of adverse possession is insufficient. The evidence of the appellant tended to show he had been in possession since 1898. •

The plaintiffs offered in evidence the record of an action for the recovery of these lands, brought; against John M. Crisp, Harvey Crisp, and Allen Crisp, by summons issued 17 March, 1903. This cause was tried two or three times in Graham, and was removed to Jackson and nonsuited in 1909, and the summons in the present case was issued in 1909.

From the time he entered in 1898 until the summons was issued, 17 March, 1903, in the case of Archer et al. v. John M. Crisp and Harvey Crisp, was less than seven years. The plaintiffs in that suit were the predecessors in title of Hopkins. The defendant claims he was not served with summons, but the complaint is against the defendant, Harvey Crisp, and all the defendants answered.

The defendant, Harvey Crisp, proposed to prove that he did not authorize an answer to be filed for him. His Honor properly excluded such evidence. A record of this kind cannot be thus collaterally attacked.

It is well settled that where it appears upon tbe face of tbe record tbat tbe court bad acquired jurisdiction of tbe parties and of tbe subject-matter of tbe action, tbe judgment therein is valid, however irregular it may be, and it must stand until set aside in a proper proceeding by competent authority. England v. Garner, 90 N. C., 197; Harrison v. Hargrove, 120 N. C., 106.

No error.