TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Battle v. Mercer

BATTLE Et Al. v. MERCER Et Al.

Battle v. Mercer, 123 S.E. 258 (N.C. 1924)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 21, 1924
Judges
Stacy
Citations
123 S.E. 258188 N.C. 1161924 N.C. LEXIS 16

Opinion of the Court — Stacy

Stacy, J.

Tbe circumstances of tbis case bave caused a most critical and searching examination of tbe petition to rehear. It is tbe policy of our law to give every litigant full and ample opportunity to be beard. Tbis tbe petitioning defendants bave bad in tbe instant suit; and if they bave lost any rights, it must be attributed to their own laches and want of attention in looking after their case. Tbe adjective law is not to be enforced harshly or oppressively, but rather in a spirit of liberality, to tbe end tbat justice may be administered in all cases. But tbis does not mean tbat procedural statutes will be construed by tbe courts in a manner so as to favor tbe negligent and penalize tbe diligent party.

Yigilantibus et non dormientibus subvenit lex:

“Tbe law comes to tbe assistance of tbe diligent, and not to those who sleep upon their rights.” When litigants resort to tbe judiciary for tbe settlement of their dis *117 putes they are invoking a public agency, and they should not forget that rules of procedure are necessary, and must be observed, in. order to enable the courts properly to discharge their duties.

There are no sufficient facts and circumstances appearing in the original case or in the petition to rehear to warrant a reasonable assurance that the petitioning defendants would secure any substantial relief even if the petition were allowed. Nothing on the record was overlooked when the case was originally heard.

The petition to rehear must be denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1925: 11927: 11928: 11930: 21931: 21935: 11979: 219252026peak 1930 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Pruitt v. Wood156 S.E. 126 (N.C. 1930)
  2. State v. Casey161 S.E. 81 (N.C. 1931)
  3. Sutherland v. McLean154 S.E. 662 (N.C. 1930) · Dissent
  4. State v. Brown257 S.E.2d 668 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979)
  5. Brown v. Norfolk Southern Railroad181 S.E. 279 (N.C. 1935)
  6. Meece v. Commercial Credit Co.159 S.E. 17 (N.C. 1931) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. State v. Brown257 S.E.2d 668 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979)
  2. Evans v. Just Open Government251 S.E.2d 546 (Ga. 1979)
  3. Brown v. Norfolk Southern Railroad181 S.E. 279 (N.C. 1935)
  4. State v. Casey161 S.E. 81 (N.C. 1931)
  5. Meece v. Commercial Credit Co.159 S.E. 17 (N.C. 1931) · Dissent
  6. Pruitt v. Wood156 S.E. 126 (N.C. 1930)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list