{
  "id": 8552827,
  "name": "J. A. HOUCK, Assignee v. MRS. J. B. OVERCASH and BILL RAMSEY, T/A BILLY'S PLUMBING CO.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Houck v. Overcash",
  "decision_date": "1972-08-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 7225SC537",
  "first_page": "581",
  "last_page": "582",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "15 N.C. App. 581"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "133 S.E. 2d 659",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 N.C. 732",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8576229
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/260/0732-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 S.E. 2d 99",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 728",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8576158
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0728-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 234,
    "char_count": 3206,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.541,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.7830631632491627e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8353533352716703
    },
    "sha256": "a410b9b5b06efb241c67f8fe229058a08312c739f76a97a7946afc8e16608352",
    "simhash": "1:de3014078bf53ff5",
    "word_count": 546
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:51.335715+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Parker and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "J. A. HOUCK, Assignee v. MRS. J. B. OVERCASH and BILL RAMSEY, T/A BILLY\u2019S PLUMBING CO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GRAHAM, Judge.\nDefendants moved in this Court to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s appeal for the reason that no case on appeal was served on them as required by G.S. 1-282. Plaintiff concedes he did not serve a case on appeal on defendants, but contends his only asserted errors are errors appearing on the face of the record.\nWhere appellant\u2019s assignments of error all relate to the record proper it is not necessary that a case on appeal be served on the appellee. Holsomback v. Holsomback, 273 N.C. 728, 161 S.E. 2d 99. \u201cIn the absence of a case on appeal served within the time fixed by the statute, or by valid enlargement, the appellate court will review only the record proper and determine whether errors of law are disclosed on the face thereof.\u201d Machine Co. v. Dixon, 260 N.C. 732, 133 S.E. 2d 659. Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled; however, we limit our review to the record proper.\nIn its order allowing defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment the trial judge found that plaintiff\u2019s claim is based on a purported assignment of the judgment made after the judgment had been paid and satisfied of record. Since our review is limited to matters appearing on the face of the record, we must assume that all of the evidence before the trial court established that there is no genuine issue as to this material fact. The remaining question is whether this finding of fact supports the court\u2019s legal conclusion that the purported assignment relied upon by plaintiff was ineffective and conferred on him no right, title or interest in the judgment. We hold that it does. Once the judgment was paid and satisfied of record it was extinguished and nothing remained for plaintiff to assign. An attempted assignment of a judgment already paid and satisfied of record is of no effect. 5 Strong, N.C. Index 2d, Judgments, \u00a7 52.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Parker and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GRAHAM, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. H. Wall for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Wilson & Palmer by Hugh M. Wilson for defendant ap-pellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. A. HOUCK, Assignee v. MRS. J. B. OVERCASH and BILL RAMSEY, T/A BILLY\u2019S PLUMBING CO.\nNo. 7225SC537\n(Filed 2 August 1972)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 35\u2014 failure to serve case on appeal \u2014 assignment relating to record proper\nWhere appellant\u2019s assignments of error all relate to the record proper, it is not necessary that a case on appeal be served on the appellee.\n2. Judgments \u00a7 52\u2014 assignment of satisfied judgment\nAn attempted assignment of a judgment already paid and satisfied of record is of no effect.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Grist, Judge, March 1972 Session of Superior Court held in CALDWELL County.\nOn 27 June 1961 judgment for $9,000.00 was entered in the Superior Court of Caldwell County in favor of Benny Allan Bumgarner, by his next friend, against J. B. Overcash, Mrs. J. B. Overcash and Bill Ramsey, t/a Billy\u2019s Plumbing Company. The judgment was duly recorded.\nOn 22 June 1971 J. A. Houck brought this action to renew the lien of the judgment against two of the defendants named therein. He alleges he is assignee of the judgment.\nDefendants moved for summary judgment and the court, \u201chaving examined the motion, exhibits, interrogatories and all pleadings\u201d filed in the cause, allowed the motion. Plaintiff appealed.\nL. H. Wall for plaintiff appellant.\nWilson & Palmer by Hugh M. Wilson for defendant ap-pellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0581-01",
  "first_page_order": 605,
  "last_page_order": 606
}