Leach v. Western North Carolina Rail Road

65 N.C. 486
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 5, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 65 N.C. 486 (Leach v. Western North Carolina Rail Road) 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
Leach v. Western North Carolina Rail Road, 65 N.C. 486 (N.C. 1871).

Opinion

Beade, J.

1st. The objection to the jurisdiction is not well taken. It was not a question of jurisdiction but of venue, and it is competent for the parties to waive that objection, as was done in this case. Graham v. Charlotte & S. C. R. R. Co., 64 N. C. 631. Where it is a question of the jurisdiction of the Court over the subject matter, the consent of the parties cannot give jurisdiction.

2. The judgment is not “ void,” because it was entered without a complaint in writing being filed.

A judgment without service of process is void, because the defendant is not in Court. But in this case the defendant was brought into Court by the summons, and being in Court he may confess judgment, or allow it to be entered by default, as was done in this case.

The “complaint” under the new system answers to the declaration under the old; and although regularly, it ought to be in writing, and filed at the commencement of the pleading; and although we do not wish to be considered as favoring loose practice, but the contrary, yet evidently, by consent, the complaint may be waived and judgment may be confessed or entered by consent. And even if the judgment for such a cause were irregular, it is certainly not void, and therefore the *488 irregularity might be cured by allowing a complaint to be filed whenever some afterthought of the defendant makes an objection as in this case.

There is error in the order vacating the judgment.

This will be certified, &c.

Per Curiam. Error..

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

Related

Davis v. Hall
733 S.E.2d 878 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2012)
Ray v. Pilot Fire Insurance
121 S.E. 779 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1924)
McArthur v. . Griffith
61 S.E. 519 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1908)
Baruch v. . Long
23 S.E. 447 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1895)
White v. . Morris
12 S.E. 80 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1890)
Robeson v. . Hodges
11 S.E. 263 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1890)
Gay v. . Grant
8 S.E. 99 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1888)
Vass v. Peoples' Building & Loan Ass'n
91 N.C. 55 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1884)
Little v. . McCarter
89 N.C. 233 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1883)
Vick v. . Pope
81 N.C. 22 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1879)
Edwards v. . Commissioners
70 N.C. 570 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 N.C. 486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leach-v-western-north-carolina-rail-road-nc-1871.