Jeffries v. . Aaron

26 S.E. 696, 120 N.C. 167
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 5, 1897
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 26 S.E. 696 (Jeffries v. . Aaron) 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
Jeffries v. . Aaron, 26 S.E. 696, 120 N.C. 167 (N.C. 1897).

Opinion

Faircloth, 0. J.:

As we understand it, the plaintiffs obtained a judgment “final on an open account,” the defendants having failed to answer the complaint. This was irregular. Code, Secs. 385, 386; Wittv. Long, 93 íí. C., 388. The judgment should have been by “default and inquiry.” At a subsequent time, the defendants made a motion to have the judgment vacated ana set aside on the ground of irregularity in entering a judgment “final.”

The motion is not put upon the ground of mistake, surprise or excusable neglect. The court vacated and set aside the judgment. This was error. The court having jurisdiction of the subject and the parties, there is a presumption in favor of its judgment, and the burden of overcoming this presumption is with the party seeking to set aside the judgment. He must set forth facts showing prima facie a valid defence, and the validity of the defence is for the court, and not with the party. Although there was *170 irregularity in entering the judgment, yet unless the court can now see reasonably that defendants had a good defence, or that they could now make a defence that would affect the judgment, why should it engage in the vain work of setting the judgment aside now, and then be called upon soon thereafter to render just such another between the same parties? To avoid this, the law requires that a prima, facie valid defence must be set forth. Jarman v. Saunders, 64 N. C., 367; English v. English, 87 N. C., 497; Mauney v. Gidney, 88 N. C., 200.

In this case the affidavit does not suggest that there is any mistake in the amount, nor that there is any defence that can be made.

The question of lien, homestead rights and some others are suggested in the case, but these will not call for consideration until further proceedings are had below. About these matters the parties will proceed as they are advised, when the judgment is restored and executionary process has been issued.

The order vacating the judgment is reversed.

Reversed.

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

Related

Owens v. Voncannon
111 S.E.2d 700 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1959)
Lindsey-Robinson & Co. v. Jones
55 S.E.2d 80 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949)
Scott Co. v. Jones Hooker v. Jones
52 S.E.2d 219 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949)
Chozen Confections, Inc. v. . Johnson
11 S.E.2d 472 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
State v. Vance Plumbing & Electric Co.
195 N.C. 629 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1928)
Supply Co. v. . Plumbing Co.
143 S.E. 248 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1928)
Fowler v. . Fowler
130 S.E. 315 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Duffer v. . Brunson
125 S.E. 619 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)
Garner v. . Quakenbush
124 S.E. 154 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)
McGinnis v. Beatty
204 P. 340 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1922)
Hyatt & Co. v. Clark
85 S.E. 389 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1915)
McKeel Hardware Co. v. Buhmann
75 S.E. 731 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1912)
Junge v. MacKnight
135 N.C. 105 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 S.E. 696, 120 N.C. 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeffries-v-aaron-nc-1897.