Case Name: JOHN E. FOWLER et al. v. J. B. WINDERS et al.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1923-03-14
Citations: 185 N.C. 105
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHN E. FOWLER et al. v. J. B. WINDERS et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 185
Pages: 105–108

Head Matter:
JOHN E. FOWLER et al. v. J. B. WINDERS et al.
(Filed 14 March, 1923.)
1. Judgments — Consent—Modification—Courts—Interlocutory Orders.
The principle upon which the court may not modify a consent judgment entered with the approbation of the court, in the absence of fraud or mistake, applies to final judgments, and not to interlocutory orders entered by consent, when they do not infringe upon the rights of the parties.
2. Same.
Where there is a dispute between the parties as to the title and the rent one of them should pay to each of the others for a hotel, and a consent order has been entered that the tenant pay rent in a certain monthly amount to the receiver for the furnished hotel, and thereafter it is made to appear that by the legal action of one of the parties the tenant has been compelled to spend money for refurnishing the hotel: Held, the ■consent order was interlocutory, and a subsequent modification did not substantially affect the right of the parties, ordering that the tenant apply the rent money to his expenditures in refurnishing the hotel, and it was permissible for the court to enter it without the consent of the parties, upon requiring the renter to execute a sufficient bond to secure the final judgment.
Appeal by plaintiffs from Granmer, J., at chambers in Kenansville," 15 December, 1922, from SampsoN.
On 5 July, 1920, tbe plaintiffs, J. E. Fowler and P. F. Stevens, and tbe defendant J. B. Winders conveyed tbe hotel and lot in Clinton to tbe plaintiff F. JL Partrick for tbe sum of $20,000, one-third of wbicb was paid in cash and notes given for tbe deferred payment secured by deed in trust to A. M. Graham, trustee, and duly recorded.
There being default in payment, Partrick and vendors reached an agreement whereby on 31 March, 1921, Partrick agreed to reconvey the same to saicl Fowler, Stevens, and Winders, and Partrick executed such deed of reconveyance to Fowler and Stevens, conveying to them a two-thirds undivided interest in said property and surrendered possession to them; but said J. B. Winders declined to accept reconveyance of his one-third interest. Said Fowler, Stevens, and Winders allege that they rented the said property and hotel building to the defendant W. L. Oarleton at the price of $150 per month, agreeing, however, that $125 per month should be the rental until certain stipulated repairs were completed. Said repairs were completed about the last of July, 1922, but the defendant Oarleton claims that he leased the premises from said Fowler, Stevens, and Winders for three years from and after 1 February, 1922, at the price of $125.
This action asks that the plaintiffs Fowler and Stevens and the defendant Winders be declared the owners of said property, free from any encumbrance by reason of the deed of trust, that said trustee Graham be directed to cancel the same, and that the note be canceled and surrendered to said Partrick. Further, that said lands and property be sold for a division by the said Fowler, Stevens, and Winders; that plaintiffs Fowler and Stevens recover of the defendant W. L. Oarleton two-thirds of the monthly rental for said premises at the rate of $150 per month from 1 August, 1922, and for the appointment of a receiver to take charge of said premises and have a proper accounting.
M. E. Britt was appointed temporary receiver on 19 October, 1922. The sheriff was directed to put him in possession of the same, but not to disturb W. L. Oarleton, the tenant, until his term was decided by a jury.
It was admitted that the defendant W. L. Oarleton paid his rents from 1 February, 1922, to 1 August, 1922, at the rate of $125 per month, and made certain repairs, and that about 1 August, 1922, said Partrick, under claim and delivery, took possession of certain furniture in the hotel.
On 6 December, Cranmer, J., entered an order, which was consented to by all parties, that M. E. Britt should be made permanent receiver; that he should sell for cash certain personal property belonging to Fowler, Stevens, and Winders, to wit: certain brick, lumber, paints, etc., left over from the repairs on the hotel, and that the tenant, W. 1. Oarleton, pay into the clerk’s office the rent then due at the rate of $125 per month, two-thirds of the same for the benefit of the plaintiffs Fowler and Stevens, who shall receive the same without prejudice, and that he continue to make such payments monthly and give a solvent bond to be approved by the clerk for such damages as may be recovered against him on account of the rental contract as may be found by the jury upon a final determination of the cause.
On 15 December, 1922, “after notice, and on motion of tbe defendant W. L. Oarleton for modification of tbe order entered on 6 December, plaintiffs being represented by Henry E. Faison, attorney, and tbe defendant Oarleton being represented by A. M. Grabam, attorney, and it appearing to tbe court tbat, as contended by tbe defendant Oarleton, be rented tbe property in question as a furnished hotel, and since tbe beginning of bis term be has been dispossessed of certain furniture which was in tbe hotel at tbe time be rented tbe same, and tbat be has been compelled to buy other furniture in substitution for tbat taken from him under claim and delivery by T. H. Partriek, plaintiff, to tbe amount of $1,285, and it further appearing tbat tbe monthly rental for said furnished hotel was $125 per month; and it being further admitted tbat all rents have been paid in full until 31 July, 1922,” it was ordered by tbe court tbat tbe order made 6 December, 1922, be modified by directing tbat tbe defendant Oarleton; “in lieu of paying monthly, rental to tbe receiver heretofore appointed, shall execute a good and sufficient bond wdtb two sureties to be approved by tbe clerk of tbe court in tbe sum of $1,500, payable to the plaintiffs Fowler and Stevens on condition to be void if tbe defendant ~W. L. Oarleton shall pay all rents which may be finally adjudged against him for tbe months intervening from 1 August, 1922, to tbe month of June, 1923; and beginning with tbe month of June, 1923, tbe defendant shall pay tbe monthly rental of $125 as provided in tbe former order of 6 December.” From this order modifying tbe order of. 6 December, 1922, tbe plaintiffs Stevens and Fowler excepted and appealed.
Henry E. Faison and B. H. Grumpier for plaintiffs.
A. M. Graham for defendants.

Opinion:
Olaek, C. J.
Tbe plaintiffs appealed upon tbe ground tbat tbe consent order could not be modified by tbe court.
This consent order was an interlocutory order in the cause, and has validity because of the approval of the judge, and was subject to modification by the judge like any other interlocutory order, provided it did not infringe upon the rights of the parties, which does not appear.
The principle tbat in the absence of fraud and mistake a consent judgment cannot be modified except by consent applies to final judgments; and, also, where a party has acquired rights in the final result which would be jeopardized by a change in the terms of such consent judgment. It has no application where, as in this case, there was an interlocutory judgment for the payment of the rent of a furnished hotel and by reason of the defendant being dispossessed of certain furniture by action of the plaintiffs there has been a material change in the status of the defendant. Both parties being represented, the defendant was permitted to give surety, instead of paying over said rent, until the amount of the deferred rent should aggregate the amount expended in refurnishing the hotel.
The final judgment will determine the contention of the parties, and the acceptance of a bond in lieu of payment of the rents was an interlocutory matter which rested in'the discretion of the judge ppon the facts found by him as to the change in the status caused by the action of one of the plaintiffs in depriving the defendant of the furniture in the hotel pending the litigation.
Affirmed.