Childs v. Martin
| Decision Date | 30 June 1873 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | L. D. CHILDS et al. v. S. N. MARTIN et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Where two or more Courts have equal and concurrent jurisdiction of a case, that Court in which suit is first brought acquires jurisdiction of it, which excludes the jurisdiction of the other Courts.
The persons who allege that the judgment had been obtained in the first action by a fraudulent combination and contrivance, instead of bringing a second action, in another Court, ought to have made themselves parties to the first action and to have asked as “a motion in the cause” to have the judgment reheard, and in the meantime for a supersedias, &c.
This was a CIVIL ACTION brought to the Superior Court of the county of MECKLENBURG, in which the plaintiffs complained of a judgment which the defendants had obtained in the Superior Court of New Hanover county by a fraudulent combination and contrivance, and they prayed for an injunction against it. The case coming on to be heard before his Honor, Logan, J., he made an order granting the injunction, and the defendants appealed.
Strange and W. P. Bynum, for the defendants .
Busbee & Busbee, and H. W. Guion, for the plaintiffs .
“The rule is where there are Courts of equal and concurrent jurisdiction, the Court posseses the case in which jurisdiction first attaches.” Merrill v. Lake, 16 Ohio, 373.
This rule is so consonant with reason, and the necessity for such a rule in order to prevent confusion and conflict of jurisdiction is so obvious, that further comment is unnecessary, and we will simply refer as a matter, within the knowledge of every member of the profession, to the deplorable condition of things in the State of New York, resulting from a violation of this rule exhibited in the newspapers under the title of the “Erie Row.”
The Judge of the Superior Court of the county of New Hanover was possessed of the case. Suppose the judgment before him was obtained by a fraudulent combination and contrivance between the bondholders and the President and directors of the Wilmington, Charlotte and Rutherford Railroad Company, the plaintiffs in this action were at liberty to make themselves parties to the action in New Hanover, and to ask as “a motion in the cause” to have the judgment reheard, and in the meantime for a supersedias of the order of sale.
Instead of pursuing this regular and orderly mode of proceeding, the plaintiffs in this action adopt the erratic and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Clayton
...administration of the law, and is enforced to avoid unseemly, expensive, and dangerous conflicts of jurisdiction and process. Childs v. Martin, 69 N.C. 126; Haywood v. Haywood, 79 N.C. 42; State v. Williford, 91 N.C. 529; State v. Reavis, supra; 14 Am. Jur., Courts, Sec. 243; 21 C.J.S. Cour......
-
State v. Parker
...jurisdiction of a case, the court which first acquires jurisdiction over the case retains it to the exclusion of the other court. Childs v. Martin, 69 N.C. 126; In re Schenck, 74 N.C. 607; Haywood v. Haywood, 79 N.C. 42; Young v. Rollins, 85 N.C. 485; State v. Williford, 91 N.C. 529; Worth ......
-
Allen v. Allemania Fire Ins. Co.
... ... attaches." Merrill v. Lake, 16 Ohio 373, 47 ... Am.Dec. 377, quoted by Pearson, C.J., in Childs v ... Martin, 69 N.C. 126. This rule has been applied in ... numerous cases in this State. In re Schenck, 74 N.C ... 607; Haywood v. Haywood, 79 ... ...
-
Worth v. Piedmont Bank Of Morganton. Appeal Of Walton
...494. The first order was made by Judge Robinson appointing a temporary receiver, and he retains the jurisdiction then acquired. Childs v. Martin, 69 N. C. 126; Young v. Rollins, 85 N. C. 485. Walton, however, was properly not punished for contempt. As was said in People v. Central City Bank......