TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Scott v. Queen

L. M. Scott v. J. H. Queen.

Scott v. Queen, 95 N.C. 340 (1886)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 5, 1886
Judges
Smith
Citations
95 N.C. 340
Headnotes
Practice. 1. Where, by inadvertence, a judgment is entered in this Court for a new trial, when it should have been one remanding the case, it will be corrected on motion. 2. Where the relief sought in an action was the reformation of a deed, and for damages and a partition, and the Court below rendered judgment on the verdict in favor of the defendant, which was reversed on the appeal; It was held, that a venire de novo should not be granted, but the case should be remanded to be piroceeded with as if no erroneous ruling had been made.
Summary
MotioN by the plaintiff to correct a judgment of this Court made at October Term, 1886. The facts appear in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Smith

Smith, C. J.

This action is prosecuted to obtain a reformation in the terms of the deed made by Mary McElrath, conveying the tract of land therein described, in equal parts *341 to her daughters, the feme plaintiff and defendant, so that three-fourths of the estate shall vest in the former, and the remainder, one-fourth, in the latter — fora partition upon this basis, and for damages for spoliation and rent. No issues upon the demand for rent and damages were drawn up and submitted to the jury, and their findings were directed to the source from which came the funds used by the grantor in making the purchase. These were responded to favorably to the plaintiff; notwithstanding which, the court gave judgment against the plaintiff, and she appealed. Upon the hearing the judgment was reversed, and judgment inadvertently entered giving a new trial, instead of which, as there were undisposed matters in controversy, and partition to be made, the cause should have been remanded to be proceeded with as if no erroneous ruling had been made, and in accordance with the opinion of this Court.

The Court is now moved to correct the judgment entered at the last Term, notice thereof having been given the counsel for the defendant in the Court below. The motion is so far allowed as to strike out the order for a new trial, and remand the case to be proceeded with, after reversal of the judgment below.

It is so ordered.

Remanded.

How later courts describe this case

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

1888: 11896: 31903: 11907: 118882026peak 1896 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bernhardt v. Brown24 S.E. 527 (N.C. 1896)
  2. Bernhardt v. Brown118 N.C. 700 (1896)
  3. Cook v. Moore6 S.E. 795 (N.C. 1888)
  4. City of Durham v. Eno Cotton Mills57 S.E. 465 (N.C. 1907)
  5. State v. Marsh47 S.E. 6 (N.C. 1903)
  6. Solomon v. Bates24 S.E. 746 (N.C. 1896)

Most recent

  1. City of Durham v. Eno Cotton Mills57 S.E. 465 (N.C. 1907)
  2. State v. Marsh47 S.E. 6 (N.C. 1903)
  3. Bernhardt v. Brown118 N.C. 700 (1896)
  4. Solomon v. Bates24 S.E. 746 (N.C. 1896)
  5. Bernhardt v. Brown24 S.E. 527 (N.C. 1896)
  6. Cook v. Moore6 S.E. 795 (N.C. 1888)

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