Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Peartree
Decision Date | 17 March 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 752DC756,752DC756 |
Citation | 28 N.C.App. 709,222 S.E.2d 706 |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | JIM WALTER HOMES, INC. v. Willie Herman PEARTREE. |
W. Faison Barnes and Anthony L. Giordano, Charlotte, for plaintiff-appellant.
John H. Harmon, New Bern, for defendant-appellee.
Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in entering an order granting a new trial.
Plaintiff argues that under G.S. 7A--192 Judge Manning had no power to rule on defendant's motion because he had not been authorized in writing to hear motions and enter interlocutory orders. G.S. 7A--192 provides, in relevant part:
(Emphasis added).
In other words, a district judge other than the chief district judge may hear motions and enter interlocutory orders during any session over which he has been assigned to preside, whether the assignment be oral or written, but he may not hear motions in chambers without written authorization.
The record shows that defendant's motion was heard '(b)efore Manning, J., June 9, 1975 Session of Beaufort County, the General Court of Justice, District Court Division', and that Judge Manning had been assigned to this session orally. The motion was not heard in chambers. Judge Manning was thus authorized to hear motions and enter interlocutory orders during the session over which he had been assigned to preside whether the assignment be oral or in writing.
Plaintiff contends there was no excusable neglect sufficient to grant a new trial. Rule 60(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
'On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
* * *
* * *
(6) Any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.'
Rule 60(b) has been described as '. . . a grand reservoir of equitable power to do justice in a particular case. . . . ' 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 60.27(2), at 375. The North Carolina Supreme Court has stated that its ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Romulus v. Romulus
-
McKinley Bldg. Corp. v. Alvis
...Rule 60(b) functions as "a grand reservoir of equitable power to do justice in a particular case." Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Peartree, 28 N.C.App. 709, 712, 222 S.E.2d 706, 708 (1976) (citation and quotation marks It is well-established that "[a] Rule 60(b) motion `is addressed to the sound......
-
Buie v. Johnston, 8318SC628
...which has been described as a "grand reservoir of equitable power to do justice in a particular case." Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Peartree, 28 N.C.App. 709, 712, 222 S.E.2d 706, 708 (1976); see also Thompson v. Kerr-McGee Refining Corp., 660 F.2d 1380 (10th Cir.1981); Compton v. Alton Steams......
-
Pope v. Pope
...been described as ‘a grand reservoir of equitable power.’ " Id. at 253, 401 S.E.2d at 665 (quoting Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Peartree, 28 N.C.App. 709, 712, 222 S.E.2d 706, 708 (1976) ). As such, while "the usual method for seeking relief under Rule 60(b) is by filing a motion.... other mea......