Coker v. . Coker
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtPaeNHill, J.
It clearly appears on the face of the complaint and from admissions made at the trial that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover in ejectment until and unless the judgment in the caveat proceeding is vacated and set aside. They admit the judgment sustaining the will. Hence, at the time of the trial below they had no cause of action in ejectment.
Plaintiffs, in their second cause of action, seek to attack the former judgment by independent action rather than by a motion in the original cause. On the facts alleged their remedy, if any, is by motion in the cause. McIntosh, N. C. P. & P.,…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Gardiner v. MaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- City of Monroe v. NivenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
- Gardiner v. . MaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- Horne v. . EdwardsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- Abernethy Land & Finance Co. v. First Security Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Carter v. . Motor LinesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1947
- Hamlin v. HamlinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
- Duffy v. Griffith Co.California Court of Appeal · 1962
- Better Home Furniture Co. of Winston-Salem v. BaronSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- In Re the Will of CoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.