{ "id": 8612344, "name": "BENJ. Z. CAMERON v. C. J. McDONALD, Sheriff, et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Cameron v. McDonald", "decision_date": "1940-01-03", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "712", "last_page": "716", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "216 N.C. 712" } ], "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": "31 S. E., 601", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "123 N. C., 185", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658241 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/123/0185-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 S. E., 472", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "128 N. C., 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658870 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/128/0130-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 S. E., 907", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "153 N. C., 29", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271137 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/153/0029-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 S. E., 757", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "90 S. E., 115", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "case_ids": [ 1960743 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sc/109/0211-01" ] }, { "cite": "172 N. C., 149", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11252814 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/172/0149-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 S. E., 449", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "174 N. C., 665", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11255235 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/174/0665-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 S. E., 104", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "175 N. C., 148", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657679 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/175/0148-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 S. E., 691", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "113 N. C., 537", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653552 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/113/0537-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 S. E., 666", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "113 N. C., 466", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653421 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/113/0466-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 N. C., 206", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11276802 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/66/0206-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 N. C., 348", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8682731 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/74/0348-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 N. C., 121", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272748 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/92/0121-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 S. E., 492", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "98 N. C., 275", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11274268 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/98/0275-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 S. E., 17", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "160 N. C., 168", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270843 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/160/0168-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 S. E., 481", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 N. C., 445", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629953 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/195/0445-01" ] }, { "cite": "192 S. E., 99", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "211 N. C., 707", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628936 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/211/0707-01" ] }, { "cite": "124 S. E., 629", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "188 N. C., 357", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653817 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/188/0357-01" ] }, { "cite": "60 N. E., 1039", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "157 Ind., 172", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1524246 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ind/157/0172-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 Law Ed., 1", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "268 U. S., 288", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 13064 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/268/0288-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 S. E., 166", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 N. C., 362", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2217700 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/193/0362-01" ] }, { "cite": "115 S. E., 172", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "184 N. C., 442", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270849 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/184/0442-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 L. R. A., 949", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "159 Ind., 661", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "163 N. C., 409", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272040 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "79" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/163/0409-01" ] }, { "cite": "144 S. E., 535", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "196 N. C., 58", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623880 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/196/0058-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 S. E., 31", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 N. C., 443", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655276 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/119/0443-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 N. C., 83", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8685019 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/87/0083-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 S. E., 774", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "211 N. C., 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626227 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/211/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "34 S. E., 446", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "125 N. C., 383", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273985 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/125/0383-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 S. E., 935", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "132 N. C., 473", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8660180 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/132/0473-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 S. E., 186", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "191 N. C., 818", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631760 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/191/0818-01" ] }, { "cite": "166 S. E., 292", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "203 N. C., 316", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8609830 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/203/0316-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 S. E., 350", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 N. C., 216", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2217667 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/193/0216-01" ] }, { "cite": "1914 B 82", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Barb.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "98 S. E., 280", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "177 N. C., 125", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653820 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/177/0125-01" ] }, { "cite": "183 S. E., 657", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "209 N. C., 291", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2221626 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/209/0291-01" ] }, { "cite": "196 S. E., 340", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "213 N. C., 369", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628167 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/213/0369-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 615, "char_count": 9312, "ocr_confidence": 0.499, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.885487734409532e-07, "percentile": 0.9010851597911693 }, "sha256": "eb7f592116873ee8b65d739a2fdf34e8e98889aa5f98574e10aab6cd2a1a4473", "simhash": "1:dff42ea18fdda608", "word_count": 1676 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:30.134660+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "BENJ. Z. CAMERON v. C. J. McDONALD, Sheriff, et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nIn tbe present proceeding, tbe plaintiff seeks to annul tbat part of tbe judgment rendered in tbe case of \"Babcock Lumber Company v. Benj. Z. Cameron\u201d wbicb orders a sale pf certain lands to enforce specific lien tbereon \u201cfree of defendant\u2019s claim of homestead.\u201d Tbe character of tbe attack, whether direct or collateral, may be treated with indifference in tbe view we take of tbe case. Finance Co. v. Trust Co., 213 N. C., 369, 196 S. E., 340; Oliver v. Hood, 209 N. C., 291, 183 S. E., 657; Craddock v. Brinkley, 177 N. C., 125, 98 S. E., 280; Note, Ann. Cas. 1914 B 82; 15 R. C. L., 839.\nTbe plaintiff is entitled to prevail only in case tbe judgment assailed is void. Ellis v. Ellis, 193 N. C., 216, 136 S. E., 350. No. appeal lies from one Superior Court to another. S. v. Lea, 203 N. C., 316, 166 S. E., 292, and cases there cited. Tbe proper way to review an erroneous judgment of tbe Superior Court is by appeal to tbe Supreme Court. Finger v. Smith, 191 N. C., 818, 133 S. E., 186; McLeod v. Graham, 132 N. C., 473, 43 S. E., 935; Henderson v. Moore, 125 N. C., 383, 34 S. E., 446; Dail v. Hawkins, 211 N. C., 283, 189 S. E., 774.\nIt may be conceded tbat tbe order of sale \u201cfree of defendant\u2019s claim of homestead\u201d is discordant with tbe law on tbe subject. Cumming v. Bloodworth, 87 N. C., 83. Tbe court doubtless bad in mind tbat tbe plaintiff was asserting a \u201cmechanic\u2019s lien,\u201d wbicb is superior to homestead, rather than a lien for materials furnished, wbicb is inferior to tbe homestead exemption of tbe owner. Broyhill v. Gaither, 119 N. C., 443, 26 S. E., 31. It is tbe function of tbe Supreme Court to correct such errors when properly presented for review. But unless tbe jurisdiction of tbe appellate court is invoked in some appropriate way, i.e., by appeal or certiorari, all regular judgments rendered within tbe trial court\u2019s jurisdiction, regardless of their correctness in law, become final and are binding on tbe parties. Distributing Co. v. Carraway, 196 N. C., 58, 144 S. E., 535.\nIt is provided by Art. X, sec. 2, of tbe Constitution tbat \u201cEvery homestead . . . not exceeding in value one thousand dollars . . . shall be exempt from sale under execution or other final process obtained on any debt,\u201d save and except sales for taxes and purchase-money obligations. Hence, bad tbe judgment not mentioned tbe matter of homestead, or bad it not been in issue, tbe case of Cumming v. Bloodworth, supra, would be a direct authority for tbe plaintiff\u2019s position. But with tbe question of homestead admittedly at issue and decided adversely to plaintiff\u2019s claim, though erroneously perhaps, it does not follow tbat tbe judgment, unappealed from and unchallenged, is void, either in whole or in part. \u201cA regular judgment against him, disposing of bis homestead, would not be void or even ii\u2019regular, but at most only erroneous, and to be corrected, if wrong, by appeal.\u201d Simmons v. McCullin, 163 N. C., 409, 79. S. E., 625.\nTbe authority to bear and determine carries with it the power to adjudge erroneously as well as correctly. Hart v. Smith, 159 Ind., 661, 95 A. S. R., 280, 58 L. R. A., 949. This is a postulate of jurisdiction. King v. R. R., 184 N. C., 442, 115 S. E., 172; S. c., sub nomine, R. R. v. Story, 193 N. C., 362, 137 S. E., 166. \u201cA judgment not appealed from, however erroneous, is res judicata.\u201d North Carolina R. R. v. Story, 268 U. S., 288. If this were not so, why have a court of review or one for the correction of errors ?\nGiven jurisdiction and the power to decide, it is not perceived upon what principle a mistake in constitutional law should be visited with more, or less, serious consequences than a mistake in common or statutory law. Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co., filed 6 November, 1939, .... U. S., ....., 84 Law Ed., 1; Simmons v. McCullin, supra; Koepke v. Hill, 157 Ind., 172, 60 N. E., 1039; 87 A. S. R., 161; 15 R. C. L., 861.\nMoreover, it is the general rule, subject to certain exceptions, that a defendant may waive a constitutional as well as a statutory provision made for his benefit. Sedgwick Stat. and Const. Law, p. 111. And this may be done by express consent, by failure to assert it in apt time, or by conduct inconsistent with a purpose to insist upon it. S. v. Hartsfield, 188 N. C., 357, 124 S. E., 629.\nThe right to claim a homestead may be lost by failure to assert it in apt time, by waiver, or by estoppel. Pence v. Price, 211 N. C., 707, 192 S. E., 99; Duplin County v. Harrell, 195 N. C., 445, 142 S. E., 481; Simmons v. McCullin, supra; Caudle v. Morris, 160 N. C., 168, 76 S. E., 17; Wilson v. Taylor, 98 N. C., 275, 3 S. E., 492; Hinson v. Adrian, 92 N. C., 121. The holding in Lambert v. Kinnery, 74 N. C., 348, is not at variance with this position. Nor is the decision in Dellinger v. Tweed, 66 N. C., 206, contra.\nHaving omitted to assert his right to a homestead in the particular land, when the matter was in issue, we think the plaintiff is now estopped to relitigate the question. Ladd v. Byrd, 113 N. C., 466, 18 S. E., 666. He may have preferred a homestead in other lands, or at least it did not then appear that the claim of homestead would be asserted against the enforcement of the lien on the specific property for materials furnished and used in the construction of the building erected thereon. Ferguson v. Wright, 113 N. C., 537, 18 S. E., 691. The matter is concluded by the former judgment.\nA judgment regularly entered by a court having jurisdiction and authority to act in the premises, from which no appeal is taken, operates as an estoppel upon the parties thereto and those claiming under them, though the judgment may be erroneous in law. Northcott v. Northcott, 175 N. C., 148, 95 S. E., 104; Moore v. Packer, 174 N. C., 665, 94 S. E., 449; Gold v. Maxwell, 172 N. C., 149, 90 S. E., 115; Propst v. Caldwell, ibid., 594, 90 S. E., 757; White v. Tayloe, 153 N. C., 29, 68 S. E., 907; Weeks v. McPhail, 128 N. C., 130, 38 S. E., 472; Land Co. v. Guthrie, 123 N. C., 185, 31 S. E., 601.\nThe logic of tbe decision in Simmons v. McCullin, supra, is in full support of the defendant\u2019s view.\nError.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "W. Clement Barrett and H. F. Seawell, Jr., for plaintiff, appellee.", "Hoyle & Edwards for defendants, appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "BENJ. Z. CAMERON v. C. J. McDONALD, Sheriff, et al.\n(Filed 3 January, 1940.)\n1. Judgments \u00a7 22i: Courts \u00a7 3\u2014\nThe sole remedy against error of law in a regular judgment rendered within the Superior Court\u2019s jurisdiction is by appeal, and in the absence of appeal the judgment is final and binding on the parties and may not be attacked in subsequent proceedings in the Superior Court, since no appeal will lie from one Superior Court judge to another. \u2022\n2. Laborers\u2019 and Materialmen\u2019s Liens \u00a7 8: Homestead \u00a7 4\u2014\nThe right of homestead is superior to the lien of a material furnisher. Constitution of North Carolina, Art. X, sec. 2.\n3. Judgments \u00a7 32: Homestead \u00a7 8 \u2014 Bight to homestead may be waived.\nThe right to claim homestead may be lost by failure to assert it in apt time, by waiver, or by estoppel, and therefore when no appeal is taken from a judgment in proceedings to enforce a materialman\u2019s lien which specifically orders the property to be sold free of homestead, the judgment is res judicata and estops the owner from maintaining subsequent proceedings to restrain the sale of the land free of homestead, notwithstanding that this provision of the prior judgment may be erroneous.\n4. Constitutional Law \u00a7 Sc\u2014\nSubject to certain exceptions, a defendant may waive a constitutional as well as a statutory provision made for his benefit, and such waiver may be made by express consent, by failure to assert it in apt time, or by conduct inconsistent with a purpose to insist upon it.\nAppeal by defendants from Olive, Special Judge, at September Term, 1939, of Moose.\nCivil action to restrain sale of plaintiff\u2019s land under execution free of homestead.\nIt is alleged in the complaint:\n1. That the plaintiff is indebted to tbe defendant in the sum of $229.08, with interest from 18 February, 1938, for building materials and lumber purchased on credit and used by the plaintiff in the construction of a building on a lot of land, specifically described, situate in Moore County.\n2. That on 4 March, 1938, the defendant filed material furnishers\u2019 \u201clien on said land and building, and brought action to enforce said lien, exclusive of homestead to the said plaintiff.\u201d\nIt appears from the \u201cfacts agreed\u201d:\n3. That judgment by default was rendered in said action, \u201cpurporting to perfect said lien and declared it to be a specific lien on said lands, and directed that said lands be sold under execution free of defendant\u2019s homestead.\u201d\n4. That no appeal was taken from said judgment, and no order has been entered setting aside, modifying or altering it in any way. \u25a0\n5. That execution was issued on said judgment, directing the sheriff to sell the same \u201cfree of defendant\u2019s claim of homestead\u201d in accordance with the language of the judgment.\nThe court being of opinion \u201cthat the portion of said judgment . . . \u2019which adjudges that Babcock Lumber Company is entitled to have Benj. Z. Cameron\u2019s land sold free of homestead is void,\u201d entered judgment for plaintiff restraining the sale except upon allotment of the homestead.\nFrom this order, the defendants appeal, assigning errors.\nW. Clement Barrett and H. F. Seawell, Jr., for plaintiff, appellee.\nHoyle & Edwards for defendants, appellants." }, "file_name": "0712-01", "first_page_order": 778, "last_page_order": 782 }