Court Opinion

ID: 9809857
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:30:17.014744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:38.523660
License: Public Domain

Montgomery, J ,
concurring: I concur in the opinion of the Court that the judgment ought to be affirmed. And this for the reason that the defendant ought to relieve himself entirely of his purchase of the land and without tendering the amount he really owed after the allowance of his counterclaim set up in his answer. The case of Everett v. Reynolds, 114 N. C., 367, does not apply in this case, in my opinion, for the reason *425that the heirs at law themselves in that case who were not parties to the proceedings at the time of the confirmation of the sale, made the motion after becoming parties to set aside the decree of confirmation for irregularity. The Court held that as they had not shown that they had been injured, the decree of confirmation would not be disturbed. In the case before us, the heirs at law of Withers, one of the owners of the land, who were infants at the time of the decree of confirmation have not been heard from. They may yet claim injury growing out of the decree of confirmation. The decision of the Court in this case binds them before a hearing.