Legal Opinion

Helderman v. Hartsell Mills Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 1, 1926PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoNNOR, J.

Referring to motions similar to that made in this action by defendant, Justice Varser, in Lumber Co. v. Chair Co., 190 N. C., 437, says: “In these motions the Court cannot lose sight of the rights of the party who has been diligent, and has sought his remedy according to the course and practice of the Court. If there is hardship as between the parties, it must be borne by him who was not diligent, unless the facts come within the purview of C. S., 600.” A judgment will not be set aside unless the party seeking relief under the statute, alleges and shows not only excusable neglect, but also a…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Norton v. . McLaurinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1899
  2. Jones-Onslow Land Co. v. WootenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
  3. Beaufort Lumber Co. v. CottinghamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
  4. Crumpler v. . HinesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
  5. Hyde County Land & Lumber Co. v. Thomasville Chair Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1925

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. State v. GrundlerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
  2. Moore v. DealSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  3. Sutherland v. McLeanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  4. Dunn v. . JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  5. Sutherland v. . McLeanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930

7 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