Sprinkle v. Sprinkle

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Sprinkle v. Sprinkle

86 S.E.2d 422, 241 N.C. 713, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 442

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 23, 1955

Docket17

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 86 S.E.2d 422 (Sprinkle v. Sprinkle) 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

Sprinkle v. Sprinkle, 86 S.E.2d 422, 241 N.C. 713, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 442 (N.C. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Winborne, J.

Decisions of tbis Court bold that wben a Judge of Superior Court bears a motion to set aside a judgment for mistake, surprise or excusable neglect, Gr.S. 1-220, it is bis duty, upon request so to do, to find tbe facts not only in respect to tbe grounds on wbicb tbe motion is made, but as to meritorious defense. Failure to do so is error. Holcomb v. Holcomb, 192 N.C. 504, 135 S.E. 287; McLeod v. Gooch, 162 N.C. 122, 78 S.E. 4. See also Parnell v. Ivey, 213 N.C. 644, 197 S.E. 128.

Tbe same rule would apply to bearing on motion to vacate an order for reason that it was made without notice. G.S. 1-582.

Hence tbe court below erred in declining to find tbe facts in these respects, — having been requested so to do.

Tbe cause will be remanded for further proceedings as to right and justice appertains, and as tbe law provides.

Error and remanded.

BaRNHill, C. J., took no part in tbe consideration and decision of tbis case. '

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