Dawkins v. . Dawkins
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Judicial Sale — Lapse of Time — Acquiescence—Judgment— Irregularity. When this case was before this Court, by a former appeal (Dawkins v. Dawkins, 93 N. C., 283), some of the questions, both of law and fact, and some of the findings of fact, were so imperfectly presented by the record that the Court found it very difficult to reach satisfactory conclusions, and remanded it, with authority to the Court to allow amendments of the pleadings, and to do whatever it might deem…
Read the full summary
Judicial Sale — Lapse of Time — Acquiescence—Judgment— Irregularity. When this case was before this Court, by a former appeal (Dawkins v. Dawkins, 93 N. C., 283), some of the questions, both of law and fact, and some of the findings of fact, were so imperfectly presented by the record that the Court found it very difficult to reach satisfactory conclusions, and remanded it, with authority to the Court to allow amendments of the pleadings, and to do whatever it might deem necessary to relieve the case from embarrassment and^meet the ends of justice, and it was especially directed, “that a…
1Opinion of the CourtMerrimon, C. J.
— after stating the facts: Among other things, we said in the opinion in the former appeal in this case, “blit we do not now decide that'the order of 1874 shall be vacated, for however irregular it may be, it may be sustained as a valid order if the heirs of George Dawkins have given their sanction to it by receiving their shares of the purchase money. It would be a gross injustice to the heirs and assignees of McDonald to set aside the order of 1874, and have the title made to them without a full indemnity to McDonald or his assignees; but, if they had offered, or were still to offer, the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hampshire County Trust Co. v. StevensonOhio Supreme Court · 1926
- Johnson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964