Court Opinion

ID: 9810889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:02:41.868741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:18.330686
License: Public Domain

Faircloth, C. J.,
dissenting. The material question is whether a judgment entered at Eall Term, 1891, in favor of *252the plaintiff against R. J. W. Beaman., administrator of R. C. I). Beaman, deceased, was a lien on the property of the defendant. The action was against the defendant on his official bond in tire penal sum of $15,000, conditioned for the faithful discharge of his duties as such administrator. At said Fall Term, 1891, the plaintiff recovered judgment against said R. J. W. Beaman for $15,000, the penalty of the bond, to be discharged on payment of $1,908.33 (which has been paid and is out of the case), “and upon the payment to her of onedhird of the estate and assets of the estate of the said R. 0. T). Beaman, deceased, in his hands, or which ought to be by reason of his being administrator of said estate; and by consent, this cause is referred to W. O. M., Esq., for the purpose of stating the final account of the said R. J. W. Beaman, administrator of R. C. I). Beaman, deceased, and the said referee is directed to make report at the next term of this court.”
A majority of the Court are of opinion that this judgment,being docketed, became at once a lien on the defendant’s property, and may now be enforced against such property by executtion.
My opinion is that said judgment is only interlocutory and creates no lien on anything. It seems to me that the penalty in the bond is the security provided by law to protect creditors and the heirs for the real debt and true amount when, ascertained; and when that is ascertained and reduced to judgment, a lien is created. The plaintiff did not sue for or expect to collect that .amount, unless, the amount of the default wa.s equal to it, and I doub't not that the defendant was of the same opinion, and I doubt if such a proposition has occurred to’ tire mind of any practitioner. The- industry ol counsel has failed to find a.single case in any State of this Union directly deciding and sustaining the proposition. No *253case in our State baa been found declaring such a principle, and the absence of such a decision, in any of the States, is significant and pregnant proof against the correctness of the proposition. Many decisions are found bordering on' the question, but not one is found declaring the affirmative of the proposition.
In Williams v. Fields, 60 Am. Dec., 426, it is held that “a decree reserving costs and other matters is interlocutory, until the coming in of the report.” A long note is appended, collecting and citing perhaps 150 decided eases, but not one is found “on all fours” or deciding the direct question before us. Several cases are cited in the opinion, but how they help us I fail to see. They certainly do not decide the question nor the principle. For instance, Perry v. Morris, 65 N. C., 223, to the effect that a judgment is in the nature of a statutory mortgage. I need not question that, but what kind of a judgment? On examination I find that the judgment in that case was an' absolute and 'final judgment rendered by a Justice of the Peace, and a transcript docketed in the Superior Court. This case is a sufficient sample, of the eases cited and relied on by the Court in the present case. If the judgment in question is a lien, why need the plaintiff- to have pursued the defendant any further, except by issuing her execution ? And why will the Court order a reference, necessarily incurring additional labor, expense and cost? I am not disposed to write a list of cases, when none of them fit the case on either side. I think the long-established practice should continue, and I also think that reason is against the defendant’s contention.