Union National Bank v. Hagaman

179 S.E. 759, 208 N.C. 191, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 355
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMay 1, 1935
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 179 S.E. 759 (Union National Bank v. Hagaman) 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 National Bank v. Hagaman, 179 S.E. 759, 208 N.C. 191, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 355 (N.C. 1935).

Opinion

CoNNOR, J.

Tbe motion of tbe defendants for an order requiring tbe plaintiffs to show cause wby tbe judgment rendered in tbis proceeding at tbe December Term, 1934, of tbe Superior Court of Caldwell County should not be set aside or modified, should have been in writing, and should have been supported by an affidavit, stating tbe grounds of tbe motion. Tbe plaintiffs would thus have been apprised before tbe bearing of tbe grounds of tbe motion. Tbe failure of tbe defendants, however, to put their motion in writing or to file an affidavit stating tbe grounds of their motion, at tbe time tbe motion was made before Judge Harding at Morganton, was not sufficient to entitle tbe plaintiffs to the dismissal of tbe motion of tbe defendants as a matter of right. If tbe plaintiffs bad requested Judge Harding at tbe bearing to require tbe defendants to reduce their motion to writing, or to file an affidavit stating tbe grounds of their motion, be would doubtless have so ordered, and allowed plaintiffs time to answer, if they bad so requested. There was no error in tbe refusal of Judge Harding to dismiss tbe motion of tbe defendants on tbe ground that same was not in writing or supported by an affidavit.

Judge Harding, however, was without authority to bear tbe motion, or to make tbe order from which tbe plaintiffs have appealed, at bis Chambers in tbe city of Charlotte.

In Bisanar v. Suttlemyre, 193 N. C., 711, 138 S. E., 1, it is said: “It is tbe uniform bolding in tbis jurisdiction that, except by consent, or unless authorized by statute, a judge of tbe Superior Court, even in bis own district, has no authority to bear a cause or to make an order substantially affecting tbe rights of tbe parties, outside tbe county in which tbe action is pending.” See cases cited.

If tbe facts with respect to tbe signing of tbe judgment at tbe December Term, 1934, of tbe Superior Court of Caldwell County are as tbe defendants contend, they are not without a remedy. See 0. S., 600. Tbe order signed by Judge Harding at bis Chambers in tbe city of Charlotte must be set aside and vacated, for tbe reason that said order was signed outside Caldwell County, and affects substantial rights of tbe plaintiffs in tbis proceeding, which is pending in tbe Superior Court of skid county.

Error.

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

Related

House of Style Furniture Corp. v. Scronce
235 S.E.2d 258 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1977)
Shepard v. . Leonard
25 S.E.2d 445 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)
White Way Laundry, Inc. v. Underwood
16 S.E.2d 703 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
179 S.E. 759, 208 N.C. 191, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-national-bank-v-hagaman-nc-1935.