Mills v. . Mills

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Mills v. . Mills

169 S.E. 707, 204 N.C. 726, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 252

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided June 14, 1933·Published

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

As the judgment of 26 December, 1932, went beyond the purview of the case, in that, foreclosure was decreed at instance of mortgagor over objection of mortgagee, without adequate pleading or showing, and was evidently entered on a misapprehension of the facts— later attempted to be corrected — it would seem that, in order to preserve the rights of the parties, the judgment ought to be stricken out, as well as its attempted correction.

The judgment, therefore, will be vacated, and the cause remanded for further proceedings as to justice appertains and as the rights of the parties may require.

Error.

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

Stacy, C. J.

As the judgment of 26 December, 1932, went beyond the purview of the case, in that, foreclosure was decreed at instance of mortgagor over objection of mortgagee, without adequate pleading or showing, and was evidently entered on a misapprehension of the facts— later attempted to be corrected — it would seem that, in order to preserve the rights of the parties, the judgment ought to be stricken out, as well as its attempted correction.

The judgment, therefore, will be vacated, and the cause remanded for further proceedings as to justice appertains and as the rights of the parties may require.

Error.

Mills v. . Mills, 169 S.E. 707, 204 N.C. 726, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 252 (N.C. 1933).

Pincite

169 S.E. 707 (Mills v. . Mills) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.