Mauney v. Pemberton

75 N.C. 219
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided June 15, 1876·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Bynum, J.

1. No authority is cited or good reason shown why a sale of land for assets, made by an administrator, pursuant to the judgment of the Court of Probate, in a special proceeding therein instituted for that purpose, is not a judicial sale, as much as a sale for partition or any other purpose, previous to the adoption of the present Constitution. The sale made by the administrator was a judicial sale.

2. By force of chap. 31, sec. 129, of the Rev. Code, the Courts ordering a judicial sale may, on motion after ten days notice, &c., enter judgment as soon as the money may become due, &c. This section of the Rev. Code is not brought forward in Battle’s Revisal, but for the reasons given in the State v. Cunningham, 72 N. C. Rep., 469, is in force and applicable to this case.

[221]*2213. But judgment can be taken under the statute, in that Court only ordering the sale. The order in our case was made in the Court of Probate, whereas the motion for judgment was made in another Court, to-wit: the Superior Court, which had no jurisdiction.

4. A cause is pending in Court until the judgment or decree is performed. It was, therefore, competent for the plaintiff to make his motion in the Court of Probate, and for that Court which ordered the sale to render the judgment demanded. If an issue of fact should be made, requiring the intervention of the jury, which might sometimes happen, the issue would have to be transmitted to the Superior Court for trial, there being no trial by jury in the Court of Probate.

5. The confirmation of the sale and several orders of the Court of Probate by the Judge of the Superior Court did not draw to that Court any jurisdiction and imparted no additional validity to the proceedings of the Court of Probate. In Stafford v. Harris, 72 N. C. Rep., 198, it is decided that the cases required by C. C. P., sec. 420, to be submitted to the Judge of the Superior Court for approval are those only where the petitioners are infants and the proceedings ex parte.

Here the proceedings are adversary.

There is no error.

Pee, Cukiam. Judgment affirmed.

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

Mauney v. Pemberton, 75 N.C. 219 (N.C. 1876).

75 N.C. 219 (Mauney v. Pemberton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Loyd
745 N.W.2d 338 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2008)
Pieper v. City of Scottsbluff
126 N.W.2d 865 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1964)
Rodebeck v. Richardson, Admr.
144 N.E. 41 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1924)
Midkiff v. Colton
242 F. 373 (Fourth Circuit, 1917)
Stadelman v. Miner
155 P. 708 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1916)
Campbell v. . Farley
73 S.E. 103 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1911)
Spencer v. . Credle
8 S.E. 901 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1889)
Long v. . Jarratt
94 N.C. 443 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1886)
Lord v. . Beard
79 N.C. 5 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1878)
Hoff v. . Crafton
79 N.C. 592 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1878)
Chambers v. . Penland
78 N.C. 53 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1878)