Crabtree v. . Scheelky
Supreme Court of North Carolina
MotioN, on behalf of the plaintiffs, to confirm a sale of certain real estate, heard before Bryan, resident Judge of the Second Judicial District, at Chambers, in Newbern, on the 22nd day of September, 1896, said sale having been made under a judgment rendered in the action at Spring Term, 1896,.of Craven Superior Court, which contained the following clause: “ And it is further ordered, by consent, that in case of a sale the Commissioner shall report the same to the resident…
Read the full summary
MotioN, on behalf of the plaintiffs, to confirm a sale of certain real estate, heard before Bryan, resident Judge of the Second Judicial District, at Chambers, in Newbern, on the 22nd day of September, 1896, said sale having been made under a judgment rendered in the action at Spring Term, 1896,.of Craven Superior Court, which contained the following clause: “ And it is further ordered, by consent, that in case of a sale the Commissioner shall report the same to the resident judge, or the judge riding in the district, and a motion to confirm the said sale may be made before said judge at…
1Opinion of the Court
Clark, J.:
The finding of fact that the land at the sale under judicial decree brought a full and fair price is not reviewable on appeal. Trull v. Rice, 92 N. C., 572; Clark’s Code, (2d Ed.,) pp. 567, 568, and Supp. to same, p. So.
The consent order that judgment of confirmation might be entered up in vacation and outside the county was valid. Skinner v. Terry, 107 N. C., 103; Bank v. Gil mer, 118 N. C., 668. The íurther agreement that motion for such judgment might, be made either before the judge riding the district or the resident judge thereof, upon ten days’ notice of the time, place and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Skinner v. . TerrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- Hamilton v. . IcardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
- Trull v. . RiceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
- National Bank of Greensboro v. GilmerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
3Cited by1 opinion
- Cooper v. Cooper.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1900