Guy v. . Harmon
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBbogdeN, J.
Manifestly the interest of Yirgie Harmon and ber husband, Tom Harmon, in the land has been properly divested, because the judgment is conclusive upon the said defendants to the extent of any interest they may have in the land.
The minor owners of the land were not made parties to the suit unless newspaper publication be sufficient for such purpose. Foreclosure is an equitable proceeding and the law as interpreted and applied in this State, has uniformly commanded a day in court for parties in interest. Gammon v. Johnson, 126 N. C., 64, 35 S. E., 185; Jones v. Williams, 155 N. C., 179, 71 S.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Jones v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Gammon v. . JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1900
- Hines v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
3Cited by16 opinions
- Eason v. SpenceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
- Lockridge v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
- Travis v. JohnstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- Beaufort County v. . MayoSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
- Riddick v. . DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.