Legal Opinion

Ragan v. . Ragan

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 5, 1938PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

'WiNBORNE, J.

The judgment below, as certified to this Court, is wholly inconsistent with the findings of fact, and is meaningless. The defendant, wbo is the moving party, is ordered to pay the allowance to herself. Patently the word “defendant” as it first appears therein was inadvertently and erroneously used for the word “plaintiff.” However, be that as it may, it is the duty of the court below, and not ours, on application, or ex mero motu, to correct the record to speak the truth, and to make entries nunc pro tunc that were certainly intended to be made, but omitted by mistake, accident,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Moore v. MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1902
  2. Martin v. Martin.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1902
  3. Cook v. . MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
  4. Nichols v. Nichols.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1901
  5. City of Durham v. Eno Cotton MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Mason v. Moore County Board of CommissionersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  2. Silver v. . SilverSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  3. Hodges v. . HodgesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  4. State v. CagleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  5. N. C. Joint Stock Land Bank v. CherrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946

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

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

Powered by the Exa API