Case Name: STATE v. JOSEPH O'CONNOR and Surety, TAR HEEL BOND COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1943-10-13
Citations: 223 N.C. 469
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. JOSEPH O’CONNOR and Surety, TAR HEEL BOND COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 223
Pages: 469–470

Head Matter:
STATE v. JOSEPH O’CONNOR and Surety, TAR HEEL BOND COMPANY.
(Filed 13 October, 1943.)
Bail § 4: Judgments § 22e—
Upon judgment nisi, in a criminal prosecution, against defendant and bis appearance bond and sci. fa. served on Ms surety and upon return at a subsequent term, judgment absolute entered against defendant and surety, where subsequently defendants moved to set aside the judgment for surprise and excusable neglect, C. S., 600, for that the case did not appear on the calendar, with no allegation or evidence of any meritorious defense, their motion was properly denied.
Appeal by defendant surety, Tar Heel Bond Company, from Frizzelle, J., at May Regular Term, 1943, of Habnett.
Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Patton for the State.
M. 0. Lee and H. Paul Strickland for the Harnett County Board of Education.
Neill McK. Salmon and C. P. Barringer for defendant surety, appellant.

Opinion:
Pee Cubiam.
O'Connor was indicted in the Superior Court of Har-nett County for breaking and entering, and his codefendant in this proceeding, the Tar Heel Bond Company, became surety for his appearance in court.to answer the charge. Upon his failure to appear at September Term, 1941, of said court, judgment nisi was entered against O'Connor and bis said surety, and sci. fa. issued and served upon tbe defendant surety. Upon return of tbe sci. fa. at January, 1942, Term of tbe court, upon motion of tbe solicitor, judgment absolute was entered against O'Connor and bis surety, tbe Tar Heel Bond Company, in tbe amount of $2,000.00, tbe penal sum named in tbe bond.
Subsequently, tbe defendants made a motion to set tbe judgment aside because of surprise and excusable neglect — O. S., 600 — alleging tbat they bad been misled because tbe motion for judgment absolute did not appear for bearing on tbe printed calendar of cases to be beard at tbat term. Tbe motion was denied and defendants appealed.
Inspection of tbe record discloses tbat defendants, in tbeir motion, made no allegation tbat tbey bad any meritorious defense, and none was presented on tbe bearing of tbeir motion. Dunn v. Jones, 195 N. C., 354, 356, 142 S. E., 320; Bank v. Dulce, 187 N. C., 386, 122 S. E., 1; Cayton v. Clark, 212 N. C., 374, 193 S. E., 304. Tbe motion was properly denied.
Judgment affirmed.