From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

New Hanover County v. Holmes

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Nov 1, 1952
73 S.E.2d 480 (N.C. 1952)

Opinion

Filed 26 November 1952.

1. Appeal and Error 31c — Where judgment is rendered during the December Term of a Superior Court, an appeal to the following Fall Term of the Supreme Court is too late.

2. Taxation 40h: Dower 1 — Inchoate dower cannot deprive the purchasers at a tax foreclosure from the present right of possession.

3. Trial 13: Appeal and Error 2 — Additional evidence may not be introduced after judgment and no appeal lies from the denial of a party's motion to be permitted to introduce such evidence.

APPEAL by defendants from Burgwyn, Special Judge, February Term, 1952, NEW HANOVER. Appeal dismissed.

G. C. McIntire and Isaac C. Wright for plaintiff appellees.

Rodgers Rodgers for defendant appellants.


PARKER, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


Tax foreclosure action in which both defendants were duly served with summons. They failed to answer and the property was duly sold. Final order was entered 27 April 1951. The cause was heard on two different occasions on motions made by defendants after final judgment, and also on motion of the purchasers for a writ of possession. The defendants excepted to the orders entered and appealed.


At the December Term 1951, Burney, J., denied the male defendant's motion to vacate the decree of foreclosure and the deed executed pursuant thereto. The appeal from this order comes too late. Jones v. Jones, 232 N.C. 518, 61 S.E.2d 335.

At the February Term, 1952, Burgwyn, Special Judge, entered an order directing that a writ of possession issue. Feme defendant excepted. The exception is without merit. Feme defendant's inchoate right of dower, if not barred by the judgments heretofore entered, does not deprive the purchasers of the present right of possession.

On 17 May 1952, Morris, J., denied defendants' motion to be permitted to supplement the testimony at the prior hearing by filing additional documentary evidence "for further consideration." No appeal lies from said order. Indeed, the judge was without authority to augment the evidence at that stage of the proceedings.

The defendants have had their day in court. They were accorded a full opportunity to be heard before the order of foreclosure was entered. Their present unfortunate predicament is due to their own negligence from which the Court can afford them no relief.

Appeal dismissed.

PARKER, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


Summaries of

New Hanover County v. Holmes

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Nov 1, 1952
73 S.E.2d 480 (N.C. 1952)
Case details for

New Hanover County v. Holmes

Case Details

Full title:NEW HANOVER COUNTY AND C. R. MORSE, CITY-COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR, v. ABEL…

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Nov 1, 1952

Citations

73 S.E.2d 480 (N.C. 1952)
73 S.E.2d 480

Citing Cases

State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. v. Ott

leans v. New Orleans Butchers' Co-op. Abattoir, Inc. 153 La. 536, 96 So. 113; Town of Waterproof v. Towles,…