Long v. Long
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Motion for judgment nunc pro tunc, heard at Fall Term, 1881, of Yadkin Superior Court, before Eure, J. .. The plaintiff is the widow of Isaac Long, who died in 1873, and the defendant is his administrator. In October, 1873, the plaintiff made due application to the defendant for an assignment of a year’s support for herself and family.
Read the full summary
Motion for judgment nunc pro tunc, heard at Fall Term, 1881, of Yadkin Superior Court, before Eure, J. .. The plaintiff is the widow of Isaac Long, who died in 1873, and the defendant is his administrator. In October, 1873, the plaintiff made due application to the defendant for an assignment of a year’s support for herself and family. The defendant immediately applied to a justice of the peace, who-together with two persons qualified according to law, proceeded to ascertain the number of persons constituting the family of the plaintiff, and make the allotment required. They ascertained her…
1Opinion of the CourtRuRKiN, J.
Treating the plaintiff’s motion as the clerk and the court both seem to ■ have done, as a motion for a, •judgment nunc pro time, it was correctly allowed. “ The court will in general permit a record to be amended and a> judgment to be entered nunc pro tunc when it has been delayed by the act of the court or the clerk.” Bright v. Sugg, 4 Dev., 492. And we know of no statute that limits the power of the court, or its duty to do this, for a duty it becomes whenever necessary to prevent injustice to an innocent party.
Our only doubt has been with reference to the interest allowed the plaintiff on…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Ferrell v. . HalesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
- Trotti v. KinnearCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1912
- Brooks v. . StephensSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
- Pfeifer v. Love's Drug Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- Matthews v. LooneyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1936
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.