{
  "id": 8649867,
  "name": "M. W. STRICKLAND v. JOHN M. COX",
  "name_abbreviation": "Strickland v. Cox",
  "decision_date": "1889-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "411",
  "last_page": "412",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "102 N.C. 411"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "82 N. C., 681",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12117532
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/82/0681-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 D. & B., 43",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "D. & B.,",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 228,
    "char_count": 3462,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.980231208079227e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9539598640692951
    },
    "sha256": "2b741e4b951fcc16af6fe8f3bd47de8471c3ba74cef3633f2d5ee809d8cfdaab",
    "simhash": "1:f264aca3084ca94f",
    "word_count": 591
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:58.286883+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "M. W. STRICKLAND v. JOHN M. COX."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ShbpheRD, J.\nWe are aware that it has not been unusual to render judgments like the one in question, but as thejf have generally been granted as an indulgence to defendants, and acquiesced in by them, their validity has never been directly determined by this Court. \u201c At law a judgment is yea or nay, for one party and against the other.\u201d Freeman on Judgments, 2. And a Court cannot delegate its judicial functions to its Clerk, so that he may set aside a judgment upon the performance of a condition. Alternatiye or conditional judgments at law are void in civil as well as in criminal cases. State v. Bennett, 4 D. & B., 43; State v. Perkins, 82 N. C., 681.\nNo error. \" Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ShbpheRD, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. J. 0. Buxton, for the plaintiff.",
      "No counsel for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "M. W. STRICKLAND v. JOHN M. COX.\nJudgments \u2014 Validity of \u2014 Action for Land \u2014 Defending without Bond.\n1. Alternative or conditional judgments are void.\n2. Where a Judge granted a judgment for plaintiff in an action for the possession of land, to be stricken out if defendant filed a proper bond in 30 days after adjournment of Court, the judgment was void, and the Clerk had the power to make an order allowing defendant to answer without bond, upon his filing the affidavit and the certificate of counsel required by law.\nMotioN IN A civil action, heard before Clark, J., at Fall Term, 1888, of the Superior Court of Surry.\nThe action was brought by plaintiff for the possession of the land described in the complaint, returnable to August Term of said Court, 1887. At the November Term, 1887, Judge Gilmer granted judgment for plaintiff for possession .of the said lan.d, to be stricken out if defendant filed a justified bond in the sum of two hundred dollars within thirty days from the adjournment. That the defendant failed to file in thirty days the justified bond required in said judgment, but within thirty days, and without notice to plaintiff, did file with the Clerk an affidavit that affiant was unable to give the justified bond required, and also unable to make the deposit, and also, at the same time, R. L. Haymore, defendant\u2019s attorney, filed with the Clerk the certificate required by statute, and upon producing the affidavit and certificate, the Clerk made an order allowing defendant to defend the suit without bond.\nAfter the expiration of the thirty days, to-wit, on the 13th February, 1888, the defendant having failed to file the justified bond as required, the Clerk issued a writ of possession, and delivered the same to the Sheriff, and same was duly executed the 16th February, 1888, by M. L. Patterson, a regular Deputy Sheriff, by putting defendant out and plaintiff in possession of the said land. That defendant, after due notice to plaintiff, moved his Honor, Walter Clark, Judge, at the Spring Term of said Court, to set aside said writ of possession, on the ground that the same was illegally issued, and for an order of restitution. That said motion was allowed, and the Judge assigned the following .grounds:\n\u201c First. That the judgment of Judge Gilmer contained a condition, and was therefore void.\n\u201c Secondly. That the Clerk was legally authorized to make the ord\u00e9r he did, allowing the defendant to defend the suit without bond, and that the writ of possession, issued after \u2022such order, was without legal authority, and therefore void.\u201d\nAnd rendered judgment setting aside the writ of possession and ordering a writ of restitution.\nFrom this judgment plaintiff appealed.\nMr. J. 0. Buxton, for the plaintiff.\nNo counsel for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0411-01",
  "first_page_order": 433,
  "last_page_order": 434
}