Garner v. . Quakenbush
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtClark, C. J.
Tbe court, upon tbe bearing properly refused tbe motion to set aside tbe judgment for excusable neglect as to Quaken-busb, and beld tbat there was not any meritorious defense shown. Mauney v. Gidney, 88 N. C., 203; Stockton v. Mining Co., 144 N. C., 595; McLeod v. Gooch, 162 N. C., 122; Cahoon v. Brinkley, 176 N. C., 5.
It is contended tbat in four months' after tbe judgment Quakenbusb was adjudged a bankrupt. Section 67 E of tbe Bankrupt Act, relied on by Quakenbusb’s trustee, has reference only to liens obtained by judgment within four months. Tbis was a judgment on a valid mortgage made…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Jarman v. . SaundersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1870
- Williamson v. . HartmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
- Harris v. . BennettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
- Currie v. Golconda Mining & Milling Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- McLeod v. . GoochSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- McCormick v. . CrottsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
- Murdock Acceptance Corp. v. SmithMississippi Supreme Court · 1955
- Venn v. . ColemanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934