Duplin County v. . Ezzell

DeviN, J. It is apparent that the Judge did not rule upon the matters presented by the appeal from the clerk. The motion to set aside the decree of confirmation and to nullify the sale was based upon suggested irregularities in the procedure appearing on the face of the record. For this reason, we think, the judgment below should be vacated and the cause remanded for further hearing on the appeal from the clerk. The general rule that an unanswered complaint which has been personally served with summons on the defendant entitles the plaintiff to judgment by default applies equally to actions for the foreclosure of tax liens. Street v. Hildebrand, 205 N. C., 208, 171 S. E., 58; Wake County v. Johnson, 206 N. C., 478, 174 S. E., 303. And a motion in the cause to set aside the judgment or to vacate subsequent decrees and procedure, on the ground of irregularities, properly presents questions for judicial review. Buncombe County v. Arbogast, 205 N. C., 745, 172 S. E., 364. An irregular judgment has been concisely defined as one rendered contrary to the course and practice of the court, McIntosh Proc. & Prac., 736; Harnett County v. Reardon, 203 N. C., 267, 165 S. E., 693; though not all irregularities in procedure are fatal. Street v. McCabe, 203 N. C., 80 (84), 164 S. E., 329. It may be noted that the law required the county, in the absence of a bid equalling the amount of the taxes and costs, to bid in the property, and authorized the assignment of its bid to an individual for not less than this amount. Public Laws 1939, ch. 310, secs. 1715, 1717. In confirming the sale and directing execution of deed to the county’s transferee the clerk found that the sale was duly advertised and conducted according to law and the court’s order, and that the sale was open and fair, and the price bid was the reasonable worth of the land. Subsequently this finding was amended to show that the reasonable worth of the land was $800 or $900. In no other respect were the clerk’s findings or decrees modified. To hold that mere inadequacy of the price bid for real property sold for taxes would be sufficient to avoid the sale and cancel the deed to the purchaser would seriously affect the enforcement of the statutory lien given the taxing authorities for the collection of delinquent taxes, to the detriment of the public revenues. Unless some element of fraud, suppression of bidding, or other u-nfairness in the sale appears, the result should not be annulled on this ground alone. 26 E. C. L., 396; 61 C. J., 1191. In this case it appears that the taxes on defendant’s land have not been paid for eleven years. *534 Let tbe cause be remanded for further consideration of the defendant’s appeal from the clerk. Error and remanded.