Union Guano Co. v. Hearne

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Union Guano Co. v. Hearne

90 S.E. 420, 172 N.C. 398, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 314

DecidedNovember 9, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 90 S.E. 420 (Union Guano Co. v. Hearne) 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

Union Guano Co. v. Hearne, 90 S.E. 420, 172 N.C. 398, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 314 (N.C. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

*401 Browk, J.

It will be seen from tbe statement of facts that plaintiff instituted two separate and distinct actions, one against Heame and the other against Gibson and wife, evidently based upon two- distinct and unrelated causes of action, viz., the notes referred to in findings 12 and 13. From the conversation referred to in findings 14 and 15 the defendants were undoubtedly led to believe that the purpose of the two'suits was to collect the individual notes of defendants, upon which they were not ¡jointly liable, and that separate and distinct judgments would be taken. That was a reasonable inference to be drawn from the statements of the plaintiff’s attorney, and the court finds that defendants did not appear for that reason.

Instead of taking distinct judgments upon the notes against each defendant, the two actions were consolidated without their knowledge and a complaint filed against the defendants jointly, setting up a very different cause of action, and one affecting their personal integrity, upon which judgment was taken by default and the inquiry duly made at a subsequent term.

From the findings of fact it is manifest that the defendants were naturally misled by plaintiff’s attorney (whether intentionally or not is immaterial), and thereby prevented from employing counsel and entering appearance. If they were reasonably misled by such conduct, in consequence of which they failed to appear, then it is excusable neglect. Morris v. Ins. Co., 131 N. C., at p. 215.

The judge of the county court has found that defendants were excusable in their neglect, and that they have a meritorious defense, in which judgment we concur. ' .

The judge of the Superior Court erred in reversing order of the county court.

Error.

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

*401 Browk, J.

It will be seen from tbe statement of facts that plaintiff instituted two separate and distinct actions, one against Heame and the other against Gibson and wife, evidently based upon two- distinct and unrelated causes of action, viz., the notes referred to in findings 12 and 13. From the conversation referred to in findings 14 and 15 the defendants were undoubtedly led to believe that the purpose of the two'suits was to collect the individual notes of defendants, upon which they were not ¡jointly liable, and that separate and distinct judgments would be taken. That was a reasonable inference to be drawn from the statements of the plaintiff’s attorney, and the court finds that defendants did not appear for that reason.

Instead of taking distinct judgments upon the notes against each defendant, the two actions were consolidated without their knowledge and a complaint filed against the defendants jointly, setting up a very different cause of action, and one affecting their personal integrity, upon which judgment was taken by default and the inquiry duly made at a subsequent term.

From the findings of fact it is manifest that the defendants were naturally misled by plaintiff’s attorney (whether intentionally or not is immaterial), and thereby prevented from employing counsel and entering appearance. If they were reasonably misled by such conduct, in consequence of which they failed to appear, then it is excusable neglect. Morris v. Ins. Co., 131 N. C., at p. 215.

The judge of the county court has found that defendants were excusable in their neglect, and that they have a meritorious defense, in which judgment we concur. ' .

The judge of the Superior Court erred in reversing order of the county court.

Error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 S.E. 420, 172 N.C. 398, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-guano-co-v-hearne-nc-1916.