Legal Opinion

Edney v. . Matthews

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 18, 1940PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

As was said in Fisher v. Trust Co., 138 N. C., 90, 50 S. E., 592, the proceedings herein have been “somewhat- eccentric and irregular.” A special proceeding before the clerk, instituted by the personal representative of a decedent to sell land to make assets, is, by consent, converted into an administration suit and heard by the judge. C. S., 135. Rigsbee v. Brogden, 209 N. C., 510, 184 S. E., 24. If the parties are content to proceed in this way, perhaps the court ought not to object sua sponie. Its jurisdiction is not questioned. Tillett v. Aydlett, 93 N. C., 15.

There is objection, however,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Fisher v. . Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  2. Rigsbee v. . BrogdenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  3. Waters v. . BoydSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
  4. Tillett v. . AydlettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. WaddellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  2. Privette v. . MorganSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1947
  3. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. WaddellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951

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

Powered by the Exa API