Legal Opinion

Pailin v. Richmond Cedar Works

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 23, 1927PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

Upon the facts found by the judge, supported as they are by competent evidence, it must be conceded, we think, that the defendant is not entitled to have the judgment set aside on the ground of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Seawell v. Lumber Co., 172 N. C., 320. Under the decisions construing the statute applicable, C. S.,. 600, if a party who is sued employ nonresident counsel, not to appear in the case himself, but whose duty is merely to select other counsel to attend to the matter, and he fail to make such selection, the first-named counsel is to be considered…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Manning v. Roanoke & Tar River RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1898
  2. Ellis v. EllisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  3. Finger v. . SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  4. Schiele v. . Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
  5. Seawell v. Parsons Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1916

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Harrell v. . WelsteadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API