J. B. Colt Co. v. Martin

Supreme Court of North Carolina

J. B. Colt Co. v. Martin

160 S.E. 287, 201 N.C. 354, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 241

DecidedSeptember 23, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 160 S.E. 287 (J. B. Colt Co. v. Martin) 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

J. B. Colt Co. v. Martin, 160 S.E. 287, 201 N.C. 354, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 241 (N.C. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

The only assignment of error in plaintiff’s appeal to this Court is founded on its exception to the judgment rendered by Judge Moore. There is no error in this judgment. It is supported by the findings of fact set out therein.

The neglect of the defendants to appear and file an answer to the complaint within thirty days after service of the summons, as required by statute, C. S., 509, is admitted; the only question involved in defendants’ motion is whether such neglect was excusable within the meaning" of C. S., 600.

As said by Smith, C. J., in Mebane v. Mebane, 80 N. C., 34, it is difficult to deduce from the decisions of this Court any distinct practical principle, or to run a well-defined line separating those neglects that are, from those that are not excusable, in the sense of the statute, and hence the facts relied on must be ranged on one or the other side of the line in each case. In this case, there was no error in the conclusions of the judge, from the facts found by him, that the neglect of defendants is excusable. The judgment is therefore

Affirmed.

Stacy, O. J., dissenting.

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

Pee Cueiam.

The only assignment of error in plaintiff’s appeal to this Court is founded on its exception to the judgment rendered by Judge Moore. There is no error in this judgment. It is supported by the findings of fact set out therein.

The neglect of the defendants to appear and file an answer to the complaint within thirty days after service of the summons, as required by statute, C. S., 509, is admitted; the only question involved in defendants’ motion is whether such neglect was excusable within the meaning" of C. S., 600.

As said by Smith, C. J., in Mebane v. Mebane, 80 N. C., 34, it is difficult to deduce from the decisions of this Court any distinct practical principle, or to run a well-defined line separating those neglects that are, from those that are not excusable, in the sense of the statute, and hence the facts relied on must be ranged on one or the other side of the line in each case. In this case, there was no error in the conclusions of the judge, from the facts found by him, that the neglect of defendants is excusable. The judgment is therefore

Affirmed.

Stacy, O. J., dissenting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 S.E. 287, 201 N.C. 354, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-b-colt-co-v-martin-nc-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack