{
  "id": 8661604,
  "name": "SMATHERS, receiver, v. W. J. SPROUSE et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smathers v. Sprouse",
  "decision_date": "1907-05-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "637",
  "last_page": "638",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "144 N.C. 637"
    }
  ],
  "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": "142 N. C., 145",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 N. C., 75",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 N. C., 371",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651085
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/94/0371-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 N. C., 393",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8696683
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/72/0393-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 198,
    "char_count": 2578,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.448,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.5358774090554534e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8129222977864733
    },
    "sha256": "a91dfa4a38bfe3f22e3d768565e0685f4704e79d8daa15ec0fe2a302a5bf89bb",
    "simhash": "1:4aa02caac0f0f7d1",
    "word_count": 454
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:27:07.773177+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SMATHERS, receiver, v. W. J. SPROUSE et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Brown, J.\nUpon the hearing before the Clerk, defendants offered to show that they had not been served with summons in tbe original action. To this the plaintiff objected and the Clerk sustained the objection, ruling that the judgment could not be attacked in this way in this proceeding, and ordered and adjudged that execution issue. There is no error in such ruling, and his Plonor very properly affirmed it, as it is supported by many uniform precedents. A void judgment may be regarded as a nullity and attacked whenever it may come in question, but it must appear affirmatively upon the judgment record that it is void. If the summons and record in this case, upon being produced, disclosed that there had been no service upon the defendants and no appearance by them or by anyone in their behalf, then the judgment is void on its face, and the defendant\u2019s position would be correct, that it could be attacked and its void character shown in response to the notice to show cause why execution should not issue. Doyle v. Brown, 72 N. C., 393.\nThe original record in this case is not fully set out in the transcript of appeal, but we assume from the briefs that it does not appear affirmatively upon the face of the record that the defendants were not duly served with process. As we understand the matter, the defendants claim the right to show aliunde, upon the hearing of the motion, that no service was actually made. This cannot be allowed. Where it appears from the record that a person was a party to an action; when in fact he was not, the legal presumption that he was properly a party is conclusive until removed by a correction of the record itself by a direct proceeding for that purpose. Summer v. Sessoms, 94 N. C., 371 (377) ; Doyle v. Brown, 72 N. C., 393; Spence v. Credle, 102 N. C., 75; Card v. Finch, 142 N. C., 145.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Brown, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles N. Malone for plaintiff.",
      "Adams & Adams and W. P. Brown for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SMATHERS, receiver, v. W. J. SPROUSE et al.\n(Filed 22 May, 1907).\nJudgment \u2014 Collateral Attack \u2014 Presumption.\u2014Upon motion to revive a dormant judgment, the defendant cannot show aUimde that no service of process had been originally made upon him. The presumption that he was properly a party is conclusive until removed by a correction of the record itself in a direct proceeding for that purpose.\nMotioN to revive the above-entitled dormant judgment, heard on appeal from the Clerk by O. H. Allen, Jat September Term, 1906, of Buncombe County Superior Court. From the order of his Honor affirming the judgment of the Clerk the defendants appealed.\nCharles N. Malone for plaintiff.\nAdams & Adams and W. P. Brown for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0637-01",
  "first_page_order": 677,
  "last_page_order": 678
}