# Cayton v. . Clark

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · November 3, 1937 · 212 N.C. 374

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3675632

## Case

- **Full name:** R. E. Cayton v. G. A. Clark and Mason Howard.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** November 3, 1937
- **Citations:** 212 N.C. 374; 193 S.E. 404; 1937 N.C. LEXIS 322
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Stacy
- **Judges:** Stacy
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3675632

## Opinion text

Stacy, C. J.
Even if it be conceded tbat upon tbe facts found by tbe judge tbe question of excusable neglect may fairly be debatable under tbe decision in
Sutherland v. McLean,
199 N. C., 345 , 154 S. E., 662 (delimited in
Carter v. Anderson,
208 N. C., 529 , 181 S. E., 750 ;
Kerr v. Bank,
205 N. C., 410 , 171 S. E., 367 , and
Dail v. Hawkins,
211 N. C., 283 , 189 S. E., 774 ), still tbe judgment would seem to be correct as there is neither allegation nor finding of any meritorious defense. This is fatal to appellant’s case.
Bowie v. Tucker,
197 N. C., 671 , 150 S. E., 200 ;
Bank v. Duke,
187 N. C., 386 , 122 S. E., 1 ;
Land Co. v. Wooten,
177 N. C., 248 , 98 S. E., 706 ;
School v. Peirce,
163 N. C., 424 , 79 S. E., 687 ;
McLeod v. Gooch,
162 N. C., 122 , 78 S. E., 4 ;
Hardware Co. v. Buhmann,
159 N. C., 511 , 75 S. E., 731 ;
Norton v. McLaurin,
125 N. C., 185 , 34 S. E., 269 ;
Taylor v. Gentry,
192 N. C., 503 , 135 S. E., 327 ;
Albertson v. Terry,
108 N. C., 75 , 12 S. E., 892 .
“We
do not consider affidavits for tbe purpose of finding facts ourselves in motions of this sort.”
Gardiner v. May,
172 N. C., 192 , 89 S. E., 955 ;
Holcomb v. Holcomb,
192 N. C., 504 , 135 S. E., 287 .
It would be idle to vacate a judgment where there is no real or substantial defense on tbe merits.
Lumber Co. v. Cottingham,
173 N. C., 323 , 92 S. E., 9 ;
Land Co. v. Wooten, supra.
“Unless tbe court can now see reasonably tbat defendants -bad a good defense, or tbat they could make a defense tbat would affect tbe judgment, why should it engage in tbe vain work of setting tbe judgment aside
?”
— Brown,
J.,
in
Glisson v. Glisson,
153 N. C., 185 , 69 S. E., 55 . “One-wbo asks to be relieved from a judgment on tbe ground of excusable neglect must show merit, as otherwise tbe court would be asked to do tbe vain thing of setting aside a judgment when it would be its duty to enter again tbe same judgment on motion of tbe adverse
party”
— Allen,
J.,
in
Crumpler v. Hines,
174 N. C., 283 , 93 S. E., 780 .
*376
A party who seeks to be relieved from a judgment on the ground of excusable neglect or irregularity must show merit, otherwise the court would be engaged in the vain procedure of setting aside a judgment, when, if there be no defense, it would be its duty to enter the same judgment again on motion of the adverse party.
Woody v. Privett,
199 N. C., 378 , 154 S. E., 625 ;
Taylor v. Gentry, supra; Duffer v. Brunson,
188 N. C., 789 , 125 S. E., 619 .
Affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3675632. Public record. Not legal advice.