Court Opinion

ID: 9812720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:45:48.622927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:59.736509
License: Public Domain

MONTGOMERY, J.
(dissenting). My views of the matters involved in this appeal remain as they were -when the former *407opinion (126 N. C., 258) was delivered. His Honor did find as a fact that the purchaser, Grainger, bought the land without notice and for a fair price, but there was no evidence before him upon which that fact ought to have been found. He did not find the material fact to be found, that Grainger did not know that the judgment against the plaintiffs was a compromise judgment entered into by their consent, without having been submitted to the Judge who presided, and that the verdict of the jury was merely and purely formal, as was alleged in the affidavits. The counsel employed were honorable men, but they were not empowered to make a compromise verdict and judgment for infant clients, especially as their, next friend in the action was dead when the judgment was entered and the agreement made. The supervision of the Judge presiding was necessary.
Doum.AS, J., concurs in the dissenting opinion.