TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Radeker v. Royal Pines Park, Inc.

W. Scott Radeker v. Royal Pines Park, Inc., and Margueritte Jackson.

Radeker v. Royal Pines Park, Inc., 176 S.E. 285 (N.C. 1934)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 10, 1934
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
176 S.E. 285207 N.C. 2091934 N.C. LEXIS 421

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Pee CuRiam.

Tbe judge of tbe general county court of Buncombe, “after bearing evidence for plaintiff and movants, and .argument of counsel,” found tbe facts, and upon tbe facts so found held, “in its discretion and as a matter of law, . . . that tbe movants have shown excusable neglect and a meritorious defense,” and adjudged that tbe default judgment and tbe proceedings pursuant thereto', be “declared null and void and set aside.”

No evidence appears in tbe case on appeal, unless tbe pleadings, tbe judgment sought to be set aside and tbe record incident thereto, and tbe motion and affidavit of tbe movants be treated as evidence. If these be so treated, they furnish sufficient basis for tbe findings of fact. If they be not so treated, then, in tbe absence of tbe evidence from tbe case on appeal, tbe findings of fact are presumed to be based upon sufficient evidence. And withal there are no exceptions to tbe findings of facts. These findings are final and binding upon tbis Court.

Tbe findings of fact fully sustain bis Honor’s bolding that tbe movants have shown excusable neglect and meritorious defense. In no view of tbe case, therefore, should tbe judgment be reversed.

Abbitt v. Gregory, 195 N. C., 203 ;

Bank v. Duke, 187 N. C., 386 ;

Weil v. Woodard, 104 N. C., 94 .

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1948: 11950: 11951: 11964: 119482026peak 1948 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Housing Authority of City of Charlotte.65 S.E.2d 761 (N.C. 1951)
  2. Carter v. Carter61 S.E.2d 711 (N.C. 1950)
  3. In re Discharge of Burris ex rel. City Manager135 S.E.2d 27 (N.C. 1964)
  4. Hughes v. Oliver47 S.E.2d 6 (N.C. 1948)

Most recent

  1. In re Discharge of Burris ex rel. City Manager135 S.E.2d 27 (N.C. 1964)
  2. In re Housing Authority of City of Charlotte.65 S.E.2d 761 (N.C. 1951)
  3. Carter v. Carter61 S.E.2d 711 (N.C. 1950)
  4. Hughes v. Oliver47 S.E.2d 6 (N.C. 1948)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Duke, 121 S.E. 1 (N.C. 1924) 19
Weil v. Woodard, 10 S.E. 129 (N.C. 1889) 12
Abbitt v. Gregory, 141 S.E. 587 (N.C. 1928) 11

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