Wachovia Bank & Trust Co v. Turner
| Decision Date | 27 January 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 370.,370. |
| Citation | 202 N.C. 162,162 S.E. 221 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | WACHOVIA BANK & TRUST CO. v. TURNER et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Forsyth County; Clement, Judge.
Action by the Wachovia Bank & Trust Company against E. D. Turner and wife and others. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff by default, and defendant Bernice E. Turner moved that judgment be set aside and vacated. From a judgment of the superior court reversing a judgment of the county court and remanding the action, with directions to vacate the default judgment, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
This action was begun in the Forsyth county court. The summons and a copy of the verified complaint filed therein were duly served on each of the defendants. The cause of action alleged in the complaint was founded on a promissory note for the sum of $750, dated January 11, 1929, and due on June 10, 1929. The note sued on is payable to the plaintiff; it is alleged in the complaint that the note was executed by the defendants E. D. Turner and his wife, Bernice E. Turner, and was indorsed, before its delivery to the plaintiff, by the defendant R. C. Click.
Neither of the defendants filed an answer to the complaint within the time prescribed by statute. On May 5, 1930, judgment by default final was rendered by the clerk of the Forsyth county court in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants for the sum of $750, with interest and costs.
On September 22, 1930, pursuant to notice in writing served on the plaintiff, the defendant Bernice E. Turner moved before the clerk of the Forsyth county court that the judgment rendered by said clerk on May 5, 1930, in this action be set aside and vacated, on the ground that she has a meritorious defense to said action, and that her neglect to file an answer to the complaint, setting up such defense, was excusable. Upon the hearing of this motion, the clerk found from all the evidence that the defendant Bernice E. Turner has a meritorious defense to the action, but that her neglect to file an answer to the complaint was not excusable. The motion was denied, and defendant appealed to the judge of the Forsyth county court. At the hearing of this appeal, the judge approved the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the clerk, and affirmed his order denying defendant's motion. The defendant excepted and appealed to the judge of the superior court of Forsyth county. At the hearing of this appeal, defendant's assignments of error were sustained.
From judgment reversing the judgment of the judge of the Forsyth county court, and remanding the action to said court, with direction that the judgment by default final against the defendant be set aside and vacated, and that defendant be allowed to file an answer to the complaint in said court, plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.
Fred S. Hutchins and H. Bryce Parker, both of Winston-Salem, for appellant.
Peyton B. Abbott and Hastings & Booe, all of Winston-Salem, for appellee.
In her affidavit filed with the clerk of the Forsyth county court in support of her motion that the judgment rendered in this action in favor of the plaintiff and against her be set aside and vacated, the defendant Bernice E. Turner denies that she executed the note sued on in this action as alleged in the complaint; she alleges that she did not sign the note as maker or otherwise, and that, if her name appears thereon, it is a forgery, or at least that it was signed to the note without her authority. There was evidence at the hearing of the motion by the clerk in support of defendant's affidavit. The clerk found from all the evidence that defendant has a meritorious defense to the action. This finding was approved by the judge of the Forsyth county court, on defendant's appeal from the order of the clerk of said court denying her motion. It was also approved by the judge of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ritchie v. White
...of married women to contract and dispose of their property as if they were unmarried. G.S. § 52-10 et seq.; Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Turner, 202 N.C. 162, 162 S.E. 221. Domestic obligations incident to the marital status still subsist, and they may not be made the subject of commerce. T......
-
Ritchie v. White
... ... property as if they were unmarried. G.S. s 52-10 et seq.; ... Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Turner, 202 N.C. 162, 162 ... S.E. 221. Domestic ... ...
-
Jones v. Statesville Ice & Fuel Co., 309
...that he would be responsible and would assume the defense of the action. On appeal we affirmed on authority of Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Turner, 202 N.C. 162, 162 S.E. 221; Sykes v. Weatherly, 110 N.C. 131, 14 S.E. 511 and Nicholson v. Cox, 83 N.C. The above-cited decisions are to the ef......
-
Abernathy v. Nichols, 242
...appeal? In the light of statute G.S. § 1-220, under which appellee moves, and decisions of this Court, Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Turner, 202 N.C. 162, 162 S.E. 221; Sikes v. Weatherly, 110 N.C. 131, 14 S.E. 511, and Nicholson v. Cox, 83 N.C. 48, the answer to the question is in the It is......