Legal Opinion

In Re Bank

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 9, 1935PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtScheNCK, J.

From the facts set forth in the record, it appears that Mrs. Bullard, the movant, was without authority to intervene to have set aside the order involved in this proceeding, since she was not a party against whom such order was taken. Her motion was not lodged to set aside the stock assessment judgment taken against her in a proceeding to which she was a party, but was lodged to set aside the order authorizing the sale of said judgment to S. J. T. Quick, entered in a proceeding in which she was not a party; and was lodged under C. S., 600, which provides that: “The judge shall, upon such…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bickley Clothing Co. v. GreenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  2. Edwards v. . PhillipsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
  3. Walton v. . WaltonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1879

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Ridge Community Investors, Inc. v. BerrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  2. Bowling v. CombsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
  3. Shaver v. ShaverSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API