Masters v. Dunstan, 19
Decision Date | 21 March 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 19,19 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | L. D. MASTERS and wife, Sally Ann Masters. v. Forrest V. DUNSTAN. |
Rodman & Rodman, Washington, for plaintiffs.
McMullan, Aydlett & White, Elizabeth City, for defendant.
In an action by a client against his attorney, the attorney is not liable for negligence in the conduct of litigation where, notwithstanding such negligence in defense of a suit, the client has no meritorious defense. 7 C.J.S.Attorney and Client § 146, p. 983; Frost v. Hanscome, 198 Cal. 550, 246 P. 53 (1926).
Defendant alleges that it has been determined by final judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction that plaintiffs had no meritorious defense to the suit prosecuted by J. W. Carey against plaintiffs, and that he is entitled to plead that judgment as an estoppel in this case.
After default judgment was entered in Carey's action, plaintiffs herein employed counsel, other than defendant, and moved to set aside the default judgment on the ground of excusable neglect. G.S. § 1-220. Defendant herein also retained counsel and joined plaintiffs in prosecution of the motion. The court found that the failure of the attorney to file pleadings was not attributable to Masters and wife and that such neglect was excusable, but found that Masters and wife had no meritorious defense to Carey's action. The court refused to set aside the judgment. Moore v. Deal, 239 N.C. 224, 79 S.E.2d 507. Masters and wife did not appeal from the order denying the motion, but instituted the instant action to recover of defendant on account of his alleged negligence in failing to file pleadings and defend the Carey suit. Defendant herein, as an affirmative defense, pleads the finding of no meritorious defense in the order denying the motion to set aside the default judgment as 'estoppel as against the plaintiffs herein, and as between the parties hereto, as res judicata of plaintiffs' claim herein. ' Plaintiffs moved to strike this affirmative defense. The court ruled that the finding in the order refusing to set aside the default judgment does not constitute an estoppel in the instant case, and ordered the defense stricken.
'It is fundamental that a final judgment, rendered on the merits, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive of rights, questions and facts in issue, as to the parties and privies, in all other actions involving the same matter. ' Bryant v. Shields, 220 N.C. 628, 18 S.E.2d 157. '* * * (W)hen a fact has been agreed on, or decided in a court of record, neither of the parties shall be allowed to call it in question, and have it tried over again at any time thereafter, so long as the judgment or decree stands unreversed. ' Humphrey v. Faison, 247 N.C. 127, 100 S.E.2d 524, citing and quoting Armfield v. Moore, 44 N.C. 157.
An estoppel by judgment arises when there has been a final judgment or decree, necessarily determining a fact, question or right in issue, rendered by a court of record and of competent jurisdiction, and there is a later suit involving an issue as to the identical fact, question or right theretofore determined, and involving identical parties or parties in privity with a party or parties to the prior suit. Cannon v. Cannon, 223 N.C. 664, 28 S.E.2d 240; Southern Distributing Co. v. Carraway 196 N.C. 58, 144 S.E. 535. An estoppel must be mutual, and where one party is not estopped, the adverse party cannot be estopped. Stansel v. McIntyre, 237 N.C. 148, 74 S.E.2d 345; Leary v. VirginiaCarolina Joint Stock Land Bank, 215 N.C. 501, 2 S.E.2d 570; Meacham v. Larus & Brothers Co., 212 N.C. 646, 194 S.E. 99.
Defendant herein was not a party to the Carey suit, but argues that his participation in the motion to set aside the default judgment puts him in privity with plaintiffs herein. His contention is stated in his brief as follows:
There is no definition of the word 'privity' which can be applied in all cases. The following general principles stated in 72 C.J.S.Privities; Privies; Privy, pp. 956-958, are pertinent:
'The ground of privity is property, not personal relation, and it relates to persons in their relation to property, and does not relate to any question, claim or right independent of property. * * * whether the privity be one of estate, contract, blood, or law, it has no personal basis as a mere matter of sentiment, but rests on some actual mutual or successive relationship to the same right of property.
'Absolute identity of interest is essential to privity, and sometimes the word 'privity' merely means identity of interest, and is defined as meaning interest or mutuality of interest; and it is said that in legal literature 'privity' means partaking of, having a part or interest in or recognizance of any action, matter, or thing.'
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kelly v. Georgia-Pacific LLC
... ... Id. ¶¶ 18-19, 21. Accordingly, when builders followed GP's instructions for installing PrimeTrim, PrimeTrim ... that "[t]here is no definition of the word 'privity' which can be applied in all cases." Masters v. Dunstan, 256 N.C. 520, 524, 124 S.E.2d 574, 577 (1962). However, the court need not address ... ...
-
Phillips and Jordan, Inc. v. Bostic
... ... No. 11 CVS 53 Superior Court of North Carolina, Graham March 19, 2016 ... McKinney & Tallant, P.A. by Zeyland G. McKinney, Jr. for ... Indeed, "there is no definition of the word 'privity' which can be applied in all cases." Masters v. Dunstan , 256 N.C. 520, 524, 124 S.E.2d 574, 577 (1962). The prevailing definition that has ... ...
-
Bockweg v. Anderson
... ... See Ferebee v. Sawyer, 167 N.C. 199, 203, 83 S.E. 17, 19 (1914) (quoting Tyler v. Capehart, 125 N.C. 64, 70, 34 S.E. 108, 109 (1899) ("A judgment is ... 147, 153, 99 S.Ct. 970, 973, 59 L.Ed.2d 210, 216-17 (1979); see also Masters v. Dunstan, 256 N.C. 520, 124 S.E.2d 574 (1962); Gaither Corp. v. Skinner, 241 N.C. 532, 85 S.E.2d ... ...
-
Williams v. Peabody
... ... 's Home Improvements, Inc., filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted on 19 March 2010. Williams did not appeal this order. On 24 March 2010, Plaintiffs filed a complaint ... N.C. Insurance Guaranty Assn., 337 N.C. 329, 33334, 445 S.E.2d 590, 594 (1994) (quoting Masters v. Dunstan, 256 N.C. 520, 524, 124 S.E.2d 574, 577 (1962)). In general, privity involves a person ... ...