Guy v. Harmon
J. E. Guy, Trading Under the Name of Carolina Loan Company v. Virgie Harmon and Husband, Tom Harmon.
Opinion of the Court
BbogdeN, J.
Manifestly the interest of Yirgie Harmon and ber husband, Tom Harmon, in the land has been properly divested, because the judgment is conclusive upon the said defendants to the extent of any interest they may have in the land.
The minor owners of the land were not made parties to the suit unless newspaper publication be sufficient for such purpose. Foreclosure is an equitable proceeding and the law as interpreted and applied in this State, has uniformly commanded a day in court for parties in interest.
Gammon v. Johnson, 126 N. C., 64 , 35 S. E., 185 ;
Jones v. Williams, 155 N. C., 179 , 71 S. E., 222 ;
Madison County v. Coxe, ante, 58. Indeed, this Court in Hines v. Williams, 198 N. C., 420 , 152 S. E., 39 , in approving a judgment divesting the interest of minors in a tax foreclosure, declared: “It appears that the infant defendants and all persons having* a vested or contingent interest in the land have had their day in court.”
The plaintiff is not saved by the application of the principles enunciated in Orange County v. Wilson, 202 N. C., 425 , 163 S. E., 13 , for the reason the trustees of petitioners “were parties defendant and were served with process.”
Modified and Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 12 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.