Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina

Leach v. Western North Carolina Rail Road

Leach v. W. N.C. Rail Rd., 65 N.C. 486 (N.C. 1871)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction
North Carolina
Date
1871-06-05
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • “Where it is a question of the jurisdiction of the Court over the subject matter, the consent of the parties cannot give jurisdiction.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Leach v. Western North Carolina Rail Road. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
12 opinions
LEACHv. RAILROAD,65 N.C. 486(1871)
J. T. LEACH v. THE WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA RAIL ROAD
COMPANY.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
June Term, 1871.
A judgment is not void because no complaint has been filed.
The parties to an action may waive thevenue, but cannot, by consent, give jurisdiction to a court.
MOTION to set aside judgment heard beforeWatts, J., at Spring Term, 1871, of WAKE Superior Court.
The facts are, that the defendant acknowledged service of the summons in this action, and agreed to waive the question as to the suit being brought in a county other than the one through which the (487) defendant's road ran. The plaintiff filed no complaint, nor did the defendant make any appearance. At the return term the plaintiff took judgment by default. The defendant moved to set aside the judgment because no complaint had been filed, and that the Court did not have jurisdiction of the subject matter.

His Honor being of opinion that the judgment was void, gave judgment accordingly, from which plaintiff appealed.Page 377
Fowle Badger and Phillips Merrimon for the plaintiff.W. McL. McKay for the defendant.
READE, J.
1. The objection to the jurisdiction is not well taken. It was not a question of jurisdiction but ofvenue, and it is competent for the parties to waive that objection, as was done in this case.Graham v. R. R.,64 N.C. 631. Where it is a question of the jurisdiction of the Court over the subject matter, the consent of the parties cannot give jurisdiction.

2. The judgment is not "void," because it was entered without a complaint in writing being filed.

A judgment without service of process is void, because the defendant is not in Court. But in this case the defendant was brought into Court by the summons, and being in Court he may confess judgment, or allow it to be entered by default, as was done in this case.

The "complaint" under the new system answers to the declaration under the old; and although regularly, it ought to be in writing, and filed at the commencement of the pleading; and although we do not wish to be considered as favoring loose practice, but the contrary, yet evidently, by consent, the complaint may be waived and judgment may be confessed or entered by consent. And even if the judgment for such a cause were irregular, it is certainly not void, and therefore the irregularity might be cured by allowing a complaint to be filed whenever some afterthought of the defendant makes an objection (488) as in this case.

There is error in the order vacating the judgment.

This will be certified, etc.

Per curiam.

Error.Cited: Edwards v. Comrs.,70 N.C. 572;Vick v. Pope,81 N.C. 25;Little v. McCarter,89 N.C. 237;Vass v. B.L. Assoc.,91 N.C. 62;Gayv. Grant,101 N.C. 218;Robeson v. Hodges,105 N.C. 50;White v. Morris,107 N.C. 101;Baruch v. Long,117 N.C. 512;McLeod v. Graham,132 N.C. 474;McArthur v. Griffith,147 N.C. 550.Page 378