Legal Opinion

Garner v. . Quakenbush

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 23, 1924PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Jarman v. . SaundersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1870
  2. Williamson v. . HartmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
  3. Harris v. . BennettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
  4. Currie v. Golconda Mining & Milling Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  5. McLeod v. . GoochSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. McCormick v. . CrottsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  2. Murdock Acceptance Corp. v. SmithMississippi Supreme Court · 1955
  3. Venn v. . ColemanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API