39 S.E. 838 | N.C. | 1901
Motion in the Superior Court of Davie County at Fall Term, 1900, to set aside judgment of confirmation obtained at Spring Term, of sale of land under a decree of foreclosure. The Court found the facts to be that the decree of foreclosure was made at Full Term, 1899, and the land was sold by the commissioner named in said decree, at the courthouse door on 3d April, 1901, being the second day of that *221 term; that owing to smallpox epidemic in the town of Mocksville, notice had been given by authority of the Judge that the term would only be held long enough to dispose of jail cases, but no civil causes would be tried; that except a nominal bid at request of commissioner, the only bids were made by the attorney of the assignee of the judgment and the assignee himself, who became the purchaser, and the sum bid was not a fair and adequate price; that the sale was made at noon recess of the Court, and was immediately reported to the Court and confirmed that afternoon, though opposed by the defendant, who was precluded by the promptness of confirmation and the adjournment of the term, which took place immediately afterwards, from filing affidavits to oppose confirmation or securing and increased bid of ten per cent upon the amount bid, which he has since done, and deposited said ten per cent with the Clerk of the Court; that when the sale was confirmed as aforesaid, the defendants gave notice that they would move at the next term to set aside the judgment for irregularity, surprise and excusable neglect.
His Honor's judgment setting aside the decree of confirmation should be sustained on both grounds.
We are cited to numerous cases that a final judgment can not be set aside by a motion in the cause, and that the judgment of one Superior Court Judge can not be reversed by another, they being of co-ordinate power. Both these propositions are sound, subject, however, to the rule that a judgment obtained by mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect may be set aside upon motion at any time within a year, Code, sec. 274; and that an irregular judgment may, upon motion, be set aside at any time. Carter v.Rountree,
In Pickens v. Fox,
The judgment was also irregular, because it is contrary to the regular course of the Courts to confirm a judicial sale at the very term during which the sale had taken place. Of course this could be done by consent, but in its absence there should always be some lapse of time between the date of the sale and its confirmation that the mortgagor, or other person, whose land has been sold by decree of Court, may have opportunity to file exceptions based upon affidavits and to procure an increased bid of ten per cent, and deposit the same in Court. White ex parte,
No Error. *223