Court Opinion

ID: 6697272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 21:56:49.327212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:01:17.532150
License: Public Domain

Stacy, C. J.,
dissenting: This decision, among other things, renders the following eases of doubtful authority, if it does not overrule them: *352Lumber Co. v. Chair Co., 190 N. C., 437, 130 S. E., 12; Jernigan v. Jernigan, 179 N. C., 237, 102 S. E., 310; Cahoon v. Brinkley, 176 N. C., 5, 96 S. E., 650; Ham v. Person, 173 N. C., 72, 91 S. E., 605; Allen v. McPherson, 168 N. C., 435, 84 S. E., 766; Pierce v. Eller, 167 N. C., 672, 83 S. E., 758; School v. Peirce, 163 N. C., 424, 79 S. E., 687; McLeod v. Gooch, 162 N. C., 122, 78 S. E., 4; Hardware Co. v. Buhmann, 159 N. C., 511, 75 S. E., 731; Bank v. Palmer, 153 N. C., 501, 69 S. E., 507; Osborn v. Leach, 133 N. C., 428, 47 S. E., 811; Pepper v. Clegg, 132 N. C., 312, 43 S. E., 906; Norton v. McLaurin, 125 N. C., 185, 34 S. E., 269; Manning v. R. R., 122 N. C., 824, 28 S. E., 963; Vick v. Baker, 122 N. C., 98, 29 S. E., 64; Roberts v. Alman, 106 N. C., 391, 11 S. E., 424; Bradford v. Coit, 77 N. C., 72; Sluder v. Rollins, 76 N. C., 271; Waddell v. Wood, 64 N. C., 624; Cogdell v. Barfield, 9 N. C., 332.
Tbe ancient maxim, “uigilantibus et non dormientibus subvenit lex,” bas frequently been applied in cases of tbis kind. Lumber Co. v. Chair Co., supra; Jernigan v. Jernigan, supra; Battle v. Mercer, 187 N. C., 437, 122 S. E., 4; S. c., 188 N. C., 116, 123 S. E., 258. “It early grew into one of tbe cardinal maxims of tbe law, tbat it will assist those wbo are diligent and not those who sleep on their rights, and tbe law will not take from him wbo bas been thus diligent, what be bas secured thereby, and turn it over to him wbo bas lost it by bis inaction”— Walker, J., in School v. Peirce, supra.
“It bas been held repeatedly by tbis Court tbat persons of sound mind wbo are served with process'must be active and diligent, and tbat if they fail to give litigation tbe attention which a man of ordinary prudence usually gives to bis important business, they can have no relief under tbe statute” — Allen, J., in Pierce v. Eller, supra.
“Tbe least tbat can be expected of a person having a suit in court is tbat be shall give it tbat amount of attention which a man of ordinary prudence usually gives to bis important business” — Bodman, J., in Sluder v. Rollins, supra.
“When a man .has a case in court tbe best thing be can do is to attend to it.”- — -Qlark, G. J., in Pepper v. Clegg, supra.
Tbe decisions in Lumber Co. v. Chair Co., supra, and Manning v. R. R., supra, do not approve of “attending to legal proceedings at long range.”
Furthermore, there is no finding of a meritorious defense, and no request tbat such a finding be made. -This is fatal to appellant’s ease. Bowie v. Tucker, 197 N. C., 671, 150 S. E., 200; School v. Peirce, supra; McLeod v. Gooch, supra; Hardware Co. v. Buhmann, supra; Norton v. McLaurin, supra; Taylor v. Gentry, 192 N. C., 503, 135 S. E., 327; Albertson v. Terry, 108 N. C., 75, 12 S. E., 892. “We do not consider *353affidavits for tbe purpose of finding facts ourselves in motions of this sort.” Gardiner v. May, 172 N. C., 192, 89 S. E., 955; Holcomb v. Holcomb, 192 N. C., 504, 135 S. E., 287. Indeed, in the instant case, there being no dispute as to the facts found, and no request to find additional facts, the affidavits of the parties have no proper place in the case on appeal. Osborn v. Leach, supra. The judge’s findings on the present record are conclusive and irreviewable. Allen v. McPherson, supra; Crye v. Stoltz, 193 N. C., 802, 138 S. E., 167. And they are binding on us. Turner v. Grain Co., 190 N. C., 331, 129 S. E., 725; Gaster v. Thomas, 188 N. C., 346, 124 S. E., 609.
The present case goes a bowshot farther than anything in the books, and the trial courts may have some difficulty in following it. The plaintiff did all that the law has heretofore required of him to obtain a valid judgment against the defendants. And even upon the next trial, if the defendants should again fail to appear, either in person or by attorney, the plaintiff may well inquire: "What shall I do to insure a valid proceeding ?
Adams, I., concurs in this opinion.