Jeffries v. Super Service Garage, Inc.

94 S.E.2d 841, 244 N.C. 745, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 505
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided November 7, 1956·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

When the defendants consented to the withdrawal of the appeal on 9 April 1956, no right existed thereafter to grant a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence at the next succeeding or any other term of the Superior Court. Lancaster v. Bland, 168 N.C. 377, 84 S.E. 529; S. v. Casey, 201 N.C. 620,161 S.E. 81. Moreover, it was agreed, in connection with the withdrawal of the appeal, that the judgment shall remain in full force and effect. Thus, it became a consent judgment which may not be set aside without the consent of the parties, except for fraud or mutual mistake. Spruill v. Nixon, 238 N.C. 523, 78 S.E. 2d 323.

The court below correctly held that it had no power to entertain the motion of the defendants for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

Affirmed.

Johnson, J., not sitting.

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

Jeffries v. Super Service Garage, Inc., 94 S.E.2d 841, 244 N.C. 745, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 505 (N.C. 1956).

94 S.E.2d 841 (Jeffries v. Super Service Garage, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Smith
95 S.E.2d 576 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)