Legal Opinion

Cox v. . Cox

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 25, 1942PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSea well, J.

Tbe defendant cannot, by motion in the cause, attack the decree of divorce for the extrinsic fraud alleged to have been practiced on the jurisdiction of the court. For that he must resort to an independent action. Horne v. Edwards, 215 N. C., 622, 3 S. E. (2d), 1; Woodruff v. Woodruff, 215 N. C., 685, 3 S. E. (2d), 5. But this is immaterial since motion in the cause is the proper remedy against an irregular judgment, and the facts alleged are sufficient to warrant consideration of the judgment assailed in that aspect.

Our procedure requires certain means of protection to be afforded a person,…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Clark v. . HomesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  2. Odom v. . RiddickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
  3. Harris v. . BennettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
  4. Moore v. . GidneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1876
  5. Duffer v. . BrunsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Cole v. Farmers Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  2. Coker v. . CokerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  3. County of Franklin v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  4. Stewart v. HuntDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · 1984
  5. McIver Park, Inc. v. BrinnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943

3 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