The opinion
*559
Stacy, C. J.
This is tbe same matter tbat was before us at tbe Fall Term, 1944, reported in 224 N. C., 547 , witb full statement of tbe facts, to wbicb reference may be bad to avoid repetition.
Tbe only question presented on tbe former appeal was tbe protection of tbe
res
until tbe facts could be fully developed. Tbe force and effect of tbe transcript in Greene County necessarily depends on tbe validity of tbe judgment in Durham County. When it was made to appear tbat motion bad been lodged in Durham County to correct tbe record in tbe case, and tbat tbe plaintiff herein bad set up bis rights before tbe court in tbe proceeding there, it would seem tbat defendant was entitled to have tbe plaintiff pursue bis legal remedies before asking further aid from a court of equity.
True it is, tbat under tbe law as it now exists, a sale under execution may be restrained if tbe deed of tbe officer who sells will not pass title, and will only throw a cloud upon tbe title of tbe plaintiff,
Harris v. Distributing Co.,
172 N. C., 14 , 89 S. E., 789 ;
Mizell v. Bazemore,
194 N. C., 324 , 139 S. E., 453 , but tbe invalidity of tbe judgment upon wbicb tbe execution was issued may not be collaterally attacked unless it be void or unenforceable, as, for example, where tbe lien of tbe judgment is barred by tbe lapse of time.
Exum v. R. R.,
222 N. C., 222 , 22 S. E. (2d), 424 .
Here, tbe apparent irregularity of tbe judgment may be corrected on motion in tbe cause in Durham County,
Ragan v. Ragan,
212 N. C., 753 , 194 S. E., 458 ;
S. v. Brown,
203 N. C., 513 , 166 S. E., 396 , or tbe execution may there be recalled.
Finance Co. v. Trust Co.,
213 N. C., 369 , 196 S. E., 340 ;
Crowder v. Stiers,
215 N. C., 123 , 1 S. E. (2d), 353 . For tbe present, at least, tbe remedies available in Durham County seem adequate. So, we need not now decide to what extent tbe Superior Court of Greene County may look into tbe records of tbe Superior Court of Durham County to determine tbe validity of tbe judgment and tbe effectiveness of tbe transcript to another county.
Monroe v. Niven,
221 N C., 362, 20 S. E. (2d), 311 ;
Clark v. Homes,
189 N. C., 703 , 128 S. E., 20 ;
Hargrove v. Wilson,
148 N. C., 439 , 62 S. E., 520 ;
Dowdle v. Corpening,
32 N. C., 58 ;
S. v. King,
27 N. C., 203 .
Error.