Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina

Cardwell v. . Cardwell

64 N.C. 621

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction
North Carolina
Date
1870-06-05
Topic
bankruptcy

How later courts describe this case

  • “We can no.more review the finding of a Judge when it is his province to find facts than we can review the finding of a jury.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Cardwell v. . Cardwell. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
7 opinions
CARDWELLv. CARDWELL,64 N.C. 621(1870)
JOSEPH H. CARDWELL, ADM'R., ETC. v. JAMES L. CARDWELL.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
June Term, 1870.
Upon an appeal from an order vacating a judgment,for want ofserviceof the process by which the action was constituted, it is necessary that the record showhowthe Judgefoundupon the question of such service; it must presentthe factas found, and not (as here) onlythe evidencebearing on such fact.
The decision of the Judge upon such fact is conclusive; except a question be made whether there wereany evidencetending to establish it, or whether a given state of facts constituted service.
MOTION to set aside a judgment, for want of service of themesneprocess in the action, made beforeTourgee, J., at Spring Term 1870, of ROCKINGHAM Court.
The writ had been returned to the Clerk's office, "executed on 18th Nov. 1868," and upon the 9th December thereafter judgment was rendered for want of an answer, etc. In January 1869 the defendants became bankrupt, and upon the 11th March 1870, notice of this motion was given by the assignee. Both parties (622) filed affidavits upon the question, and at Spring Term 1870 the following order was made:

"On reading and filing the accompanying affidavits, and proof of the service of the notice of this motion, and on motion of, etc., etc., ordered that the judgment obtained in the above entitled actions (beingthree, appeals in all of which were afterwards taken) as above set forth, be vacated, etc."

The plaintiff appealed.
Dillard, J. I. Scales and Phillips Merrimon for the appellant.Scott Scott and Ball contra.
READE, J.
If there was service of summons upon the defendant, the judgment was regular and valid; if there was no service, the judgment was irregular, and ought to be vacated. Upon the motion to vacate, whether there had been service was a question of fact for his Honor, and from his finding of the fact there could be no appeal. We can no more review the finding of a Judge when it is his province to find facts, than we can review the finding of a jury.

In this case, the testimony of the witness on both sides is sent up: the testimony on one side tending to show that there was service, and the testimony on the other side tending to show that there was not. There is no question of law made as to what constitutes service, but only the simple question of fact, as to whether there was service of the summons. His Honor ought to have found thePage 484fact one way or the other, and that would have been conclusive, unless the question had been made, that there was no evidence tending to show, etc.; or the question that a given state of facts did not in law constitute service. But here his Honor states the testimony in detail on both sides, and then without stating how he (623) found thefactsvacated the judgment. The proper course for his Honor to have pursued, was, to state, "upon hearing the evidence, it appears that there was no service of the summons upon the defendant; it is therefore declared that the judgment was irregular, and it is considered that the same be vacated;" orvice versa.

An appeal from that judgment would have presented only the question of law, whether a judgment without service of process is irregular, and can be sent aside at a subsequent term.

But as the case is sent up, we cannot tell whether there was, or was not service of process, because we cannot pass upon issues of fact.

We suppose that the reason why cases are so often encumbered with the details of thetestimony, instead of stating thefacts, is that we may see the reasonableness of the finding of the judge or jury; but with that we have ordinarily nothing to do.

It appearing to us that his Honor vacated the judgment without finding any fact to justify it, the order is erroneous. This will be certified, to the end that his Honor may find the facts, and make such order as the law authorizes.

Per curiam.

Error.

NOTE — The same decision was rendered at this term in two other cases, between other plaintiffs and the same defendant.Cited: Howell v. Barnes,64 N.C. 629;Collins v. Gilbert,65 N.C. 136;Perry v. Whitaker,77 N.C. 104;Branton v. O'Briant,93 N.C. 104;King v.R. R.,112 N.C. 322;S. v. Biggs,224 N.C. 29.Page 485

(624)