Smith ex rel. Smith v. Price

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Smith ex rel. Smith v. Price

116 S.E.2d 733, 253 N.C. 285, 1960 N.C. LEXIS 498

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided November 2, 1960·Published

Opinion

Pee Cukiam.

The only question for determination is the method which the infant must use to obtain the desired relief. May he proceed by motion in the cause, or must he proceed by independent action?

Price’s injuries were unknown to the court, and for that reason were not considered by it. It appears of record that notwithstanding the conflict of interest among the defendants, all were represented by the same attorney. The judgment was irregular. A motion in the cause was proper. Menzel v. Menzel, 250 N.C. 649, 110 S.E. 2d 333; Hall v. Shippers Express, 234 N.C. 38, 65 S.E. 2d 333.

Affirmed.

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

Pee Cukiam.

The only question for determination is the method which the infant must use to obtain the desired relief. May he proceed by motion in the cause, or must he proceed by independent action?

Price’s injuries were unknown to the court, and for that reason were not considered by it. It appears of record that notwithstanding the conflict of interest among the defendants, all were represented by the same attorney. The judgment was irregular. A motion in the cause was proper. Menzel v. Menzel, 250 N.C. 649, 110 S.E. 2d 333; Hall v. Shippers Express, 234 N.C. 38, 65 S.E. 2d 333.

Affirmed.

Smith ex rel. Smith v. Price, 116 S.E.2d 733, 253 N.C. 285, 1960 N.C. LEXIS 498 (N.C. 1960).

Pincite

116 S.E.2d 733 (Smith ex rel. Smith v. Price) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related