State v. . Hollingsworth

175 S.E. 99, 206 N.C. 739, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 300

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: June 20, 1934
• Status: Published

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

Even if it be conceded that the original order of disbarment was erroneous in view of the decision in In re Stiers, 204 N. C., 48, 167 S. E., 382, which it is not as it was entered at the instance of the defendant and by his procurement, still the court was without authority to set it aside on motion made in the cause at the February Term, 1934. Duffer v. Brunson, 188 N. C., 789, 125 S. E., 619. The remedy for correcting an erroneous judgment is by appeal or certiorari. Wellons v. Lassiter, 200 N. C., 474, 157 S. E., 434; Finger v. Smith, 191 N. C., 818, 133 S. E., 186; Moore v. Packer, 174 N. C., 665, 94 S.E., 449.

There was nothing irregular about the judgment as it was entered according to the usual course and practice of the court, and at the instance of the defendant. Finger v. Smith, supra.

Furthermore, since the disbarment of movant, the North Carolina State Bar has been organized pursuant to chapter 210, Public Laws, 1933, with authority to deal with admission to practice, discipline and disbarment of attorneys. 205 N. C., 853, et seq.

Affirmed.