Oxendine v. Lewis

111 S.E.2d 870, 251 N.C. 702, 1960 N.C. LEXIS 527
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided January 14, 1960·No. 741·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

HiggiNS, J.

Involved in this' action are apparently conflicting provisions of a deed. The court is called upon to resolve the conflict. In order that its judgment may be binding on all parties in interest and be a final termination of the controversy, the court should have before it all the heirs at law of Melinda Oxendine Hunt. The absent heirs are not bound by the judgment in a cause to which they are not parties. Our procedure requires that they be brought in and given an opportunity to be heard. Britt v. Children’s Homes, 249 N.C. 409, 106 S.E. 2d 474; Morganton v. Hutton & Bourbonnais Co., 247 N.C. 666, 101 S.E. 2d 679; Edmondson v. Henderson, 246 N.C. 634, 99 S.E. 2d 869.

The judgment of the Superior Court of Robeson County is set aside. The cause is remanded for additional parties.

Remanded.

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

Oxendine v. Lewis, 111 S.E.2d 870, 251 N.C. 702, 1960 N.C. LEXIS 527 (N.C. 1960).

111 S.E.2d 870 (Oxendine v. Lewis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company v. Carr
184 S.E.2d 268 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1971)
North Carolina State Highway Commission v. Gamble
170 S.E.2d 359 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1969)
Paschal v. Autry
123 S.E.2d 569 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1962)
Oxendine v. Lewis
114 S.E.2d 706 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)
Bank of Wadesboro v. Jordan
114 S.E.2d 82 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)