Hyman v. Jones

205 N.C. 266
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided October 11, 1933·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

It is settled by tbe decision in Smith ex parte, 134 N. C., 495, 47 S. E., 16, tbat tbe issuing of an execution on a decree charging owelty in partition is barred by tbe ten-year statute of limitations. See, also, Newsome v. Harrell, 168 N. C., 295, 84 S. E., 337, and Cochran v. Colson, 192 N. C., 663, 135 S. E., 794.

It is likewise settled by a number of decisions, notably Lytle v. Lytle, 94 N. C., 683, Lyon v. Russ, 84 N. C., 588, and Pasour v. Rhyne, 82 N. C., 149, tbat tbe lien upon lands of a docketed judgment is lost by tbe lapse of ten years from tbe date of tbe docketing, and this notwithstanding execution was begun, but not completed, before tbe expiration of tbe ten years. Tbe only office of an execution is to enforce tbe lien of tbe judgment by a sale of tbe lands, and this must be done before tbe lien is lost. Tbe execution adds nothing by way of prolongation to tbe life of tbe lien.

Tbe judgment, therefore, in tbe instant case is accordant with tbe decisions.

Affirmed.

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

Hyman v. Jones, 205 N.C. 266 (N.C. 1933).

205 N.C. 266 (Hyman v. Jones) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Great Western Exchange, Inc. v. Walters
819 P.2d 1093 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1991)
McCullen v. . Durham
50 S.E.2d 511 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
Cheshire v. . Drake
27 S.E.2d 627 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)
Lupton v. . Edmundson
16 S.E.2d 840 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1941)
Sansom v. . Johnson
193 S.E. 272 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Osborne v. Board of Education of Guilford County Ex Rel. State
177 S.E. 642 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)