Swain v. Bonner

Hoke, C. J., after stating tbe case: In Lawrence v. Beck, 185 N. C., pp. 196-200, it is said: “In tbis jurisdiction, and others basing'tbeir system of jurisprudence on tbe common-law principles, a judgment is but tbe conclusion that tbe law makes upon facts admitted or properly established in tbe course of a properly constituted suit; and when, in such proceedings, tbe ultimate facts have been so ascertained and declared, tbe correct judgment must follow and be entered thereon as of right.” Citing Beard v. Hall, 79 N. C., p. 506;

Barnard v. Etheridge, 15 N. C., p. 295; 23 Cyc., p. 665.

Considering tbe record in view of tbis accepted principle, it appears tbat plaintiff, in a suit duly constituted, and on evidence regularly presented, established bis right of recovery against both defendants, and tbis result is fully affirmed by tbe jury verdict in tbe trial in tbe Superior Court, and there is nothing appearing in tbe cause to prevent tbe plaintiff from having bis judgment on tbe verdict against both defendants.

True, it appears tbat one of tbe defendants seems to have been resident in another county, but tbe summons was served on him in said county, and, so far as tbe facts of record now disclose, tbe suit is properly constituted. 1 C. S., 1488. Apart from tbis, tbe record states tbat both defendants appealed from tbe justice’s judgment and thereby submitted tbeir cause to tbe court’s jurisdiction.

Eor tbe error indicated, tbe cause is remanded, tbat judgment be entered for plaintiff against both defendants, as prayed.

Error.