Strickland v. Cox

102 N.C. 411
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 15, 1889·Published·Cited by 17 cases

Opinion

ShbpheRD, J.

We are aware that it has not been unusual to render judgments like the one in question, but as thejf have generally been granted as an indulgence to defendants, and acquiesced in by them, their validity has never been directly determined by this Court. “ At law a judgment is yea or nay, for one party and against the other.” Freeman on Judgments, 2. And a Court cannot delegate its judicial functions to its Clerk, so that he may set aside a judgment upon the performance of a condition. Alternatiye or conditional judgments at law are void in civil as well as in criminal cases. State v. Bennett, 4 D. & B., 43; State v. Perkins, 82 N. C., 681.

No error. " Affirmed.

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

Strickland v. Cox, 102 N.C. 411 (N.C. 1889).

102 N.C. 411 (Strickland v. Cox) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Calcutt
219 N.C. 545 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1941)
Humphrey v. . Churchill, Sheriff
8 S.E.2d 810 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Hagedorn v. . Hagedorn
185 S.E. 768 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
Parish v. McConkie, District Judge
35 P.2d 1001 (Utah Supreme Court, 1934)
Myers v. . Barnhardt
161 S.E. 715 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
State v. . Cathey
87 S.E. 532 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1916)
Lloyd v. Swansboro Land & Lumber Co.
83 S.E. 248 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1914)
Maine v. Sturgis
85 A. 474 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1912)
Consolidated Mining & Prospecting Co. v. Huff
63 P. 442 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1901)
Nimocks v. . Pope
23 S.E. 269 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1895)
State v. . Wynne
21 S.E. 35 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1895)
Hinton v. Life Insurance
21 S.E. 201 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1895)
Bradley Fertilizer Co. v. Taylor
17 S.E. 69 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1893)
Hopkins v. . Bowers
16 S.E. 1 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1892)
State v. . Hatley
14 S.E. 751 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1892)
Henning v. . Warner
14 S.E. 317 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1891)
In Re Deaton
11 S.E. 244 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1890)