Bear v. Comm'rs Of Brunswick County

• Decision Date: 05 April 1898
• Citation: 29 S.E. 719,122 N.C. 434
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: BEAR . v. COMMISSIONERS OF BRUNSWICK COUNTY.

29 S.E. 719

122 N.C. 434

BEAR .

v.COMMISSIONERS OF BRUNSWICK COUNTY.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 5, 1898.

Res Judicata—Parties.

1. In mandamus to compel payment of a judgment, it is no defense that the judgment was on a void claim.

2. A judgment against a county or its legal representatives, in a matter of general interest to its citizens, is binding on the latter, in the absence of fraud or mistake.

Douglas, J., dissenting.

Appeal from superior court, Brunswick county; Mclver, Judge.

Mandamus by Samuel Bear, Sr., against the board of commissioners of Brunswick county. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

J. D. Bellamy and Shepherd & Busbee, for appellant.

FAIRCLOTH, C. J. This action is brought to compel the defendant to levy a tax on all the subjects of taxation in the county sufficient to pay the plaintiff's judgments set out in the complaint. The case agreed, upon the facts found by the court, states that the Judgments sued on were obtained in 1894, in certain actions by the plaintiff against the defendant on former Judgments obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant in the year 1888; that the causes of action on which the said judgments of 1888 were obtained were school claims, as alleged in the answer; that there is nothing In the records or judgments of 1894 to show what the causes of action were, except that they were brought on former judgments. The present action was heard and tried at fall term, 1897, when the court denied the application for an order of mandamus, and the plaintiff appealed. Upon the hearing two citizen taxpayers of the county entered, and denied the validity of the judgments in 1894, and also alleged that the tax payers of the county were not bound and concluded by the judgment against the county board of commissioners; and this presents the question for this court. Reason and a wise policy require that a judgment against parties present before a competent court should be conclusive of matters adjudged; otherwise litigation might be endless. An irregular judgment is voidable, and may be set aside on motion. An erroneous judgment is remedied by appeal. Generally judgments are conclusive, —res adjudicata, —except for fraud or mistake. The only contention here Is that it now appears that the former Judgments were rendered on "school claims, " which does not appear in the record in which the judgments of 1894 were entered. If there is any force in the contention, it should have been, and is presumed to have been, availed of when the former judgments were rendered. There seems to be no ground for the contention that the board of commissioners are not concluded. Are the taxpayers concluded by the action of their legal representative? Where a valid judgment is rendered against a corporation, the stockholders are bound thereby in respect to corporate matters, and such judgment is not open to collateral attack. Hawkins v. Glenn, 131 U. S. 319, 9 Sup. Ct. 739. A...