Lerch Bros. v. McKinne Bros.

Adams, J. The judge is authorized, upon such terms as may be just, to relieve a party at any time within one year after notice from a judgment taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect (C. S., 600), but the several grounds upon which the power may .be exercised relate to facts and do not extend to matters of law. Ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia juris non éxcusat. Ignorance of a material fact may excuse a party, but ignorance of the law does not excuse him from the legal consequences of his conduct. In Skinner v. Terry, 107 N. C., 103, the Court, holding that the words “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and excusable neglect” signify some fact of which the complaining party should have had knowledge and do not include mistakes of law, used this language: “It [the statute] does not imply that the Court may grant a new trial or set aside a judgment for errors of law or upon the ground that the party was ignorant of the law or of his rights and of the methods and means whereby he might assert or enforce them.” During the present term the question has again been considered and decided (Battle v. Mercer, post, 437), and while it does not call for further discussion, reference may be made to the following additional cases: Howell v. Barnes, 64 N. C., 625; Churchill v. Ins. Co., 88 N. C., 205; Phifer v. Ins. Co., 123 N. C., 405; Mann v. Hall, 163 N. C., 51, 54. If the defendants unfortunately relied upon the language of the summons, they were nevertheless affected with knowledge of the statutory provision prohibiting the clerk from extending the period for answering beyond twenty days after service of the complaint, and their “inadvertence” was essentially a mistake of law. In such case the statute affords no relief. C. S., 600; Public Laws, Extra Session 1921, ch. 92. As it is unnecessary to discuss the merits of the defense we forbear referring to it except to call attention to the defendants’ 'repeated promises to make settlement of the account. For the reasons assigned, the order of his Honor vacating and setting aside the ’judgment must be Reversed.