Legal Opinion

Duplin County v. . Ezzell

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 3, 1943PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDeviN, J.

It is apparent that the Judge did not rule upon the matters presented by the appeal from the clerk. The motion to set aside the decree of confirmation and to nullify the sale was based upon suggested irregularities in the procedure appearing on the face of the record. For this reason, we think, the judgment below should be vacated and the cause remanded for further hearing on the appeal from the clerk.

The general rule that an unanswered complaint which has been personally served with summons on the defendant entitles the plaintiff to judgment by default applies equally to actions for the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Marks v. . McLeodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  2. Street v. . McCabeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  3. County of Buncombe v. ArbogastSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  4. Street v. . HildebrandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
  5. Wake County v. . JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. County of Franklin v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  2. Potts v. HowserSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  3. City of Durham v. KeenCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API