White v. . Snow

RodMAN, J. This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment refusing to set aside a judgment for want of an answer, given in favor of the plaintiff at a Special Term in December, 1871. The motion to set aside the judgment was put on two grounds: 1. Excusable neglect, under section 133 of C. C. P. The summons was duly served on the defendant by the delivery of a copy. But he supposed it to be some notice or other paper in another suit then pending between the same parties, and paid no attention to it. He does not say whether he read it or not. It is impossible to hold such neglect excusable ; it was extremely gross, and has not the slightest excuse. 2. The irregularity of the judgment. It will be proper, before noticing the matters alleged as irregularities, to consider a general answer made by the counsel for the plaintiff, applying to them all. He contends that no judgment can be irregular which is the deliberate act of the Judge. In the present case the judgment was signed by the Judge. An impression to this effect may arise on reading the cases of Bender v. Askew, 3 Dev., 149; Williams v. Beasley, 13 Ired. 112, and some other cases. But in those cases the Court only instances judgments taken in the absence or without the knowledge of the Judge as illustrations of irregular j udgments. A judgment is irregular if taken contrary to the established practice of the Court, and a Judge may mistake or inadvertently disregard the practice of his own Court. Cowles v. Hays, 67 N. C. Rep. 128, and 69 N. C. Rep. 406. Three irregularities are specified: *235 1. That tbe complaint was filed at a special term without. any previous leave, and judgment by default taken at the same term. ' Every summons must be returnable at a regular term, and regularly the complaint should be filed at the same term, imless the time be enlarged by order of the Court. It is unnecessary to decide whether an omission to file it then, would be of itself a discontinuance or failure to prosecute. But a failure to file it for an unreasonable time certainly would be, unless waived by the defendant, subject to a power in the Judge to allow of its being afterwards filed, if sufficient excuse for the delay was made to appear, and it could be done without prejudice to the defendant. But a defendant could not take advantage of the failure unless he appeared. It might be attended by some inconveniences to hold that a complaint could wnder no eir-cumstmces be filed at a special term, and if it could be, we see no reason why a judgment for want of appearance or answer might not be taken at the same term. We prefer to express no opinion on this point, as it is unnecessary that we should. 2. That the complaint is insufficient to warrant any judgment for the plaintiff The alleged defect is, that the complaint does not allege in the plaintiff a right to the immediate possession of the land. It does not even say that defendant unlawfully withholds the possession, which by a stretch of liberality has been held an assertion by implication of a right to immediate possession in the plaintiff. No doubt the defect would be cured by a verdict, because it is presumed that no Judge would permit a verdict to be given for a plaintiff without some evidence of so essential an element of hjs right. But a judgment by default is supported by no such presumption, and a plaintiff must be careful to take only such judgment as is authorized by his complaint. 3. That the judgment was final for the sum claimed as damages in the complaint, instead of interlocutory with an enquiry as to the damages. As the complaint was on its face for un-liquidated damages, this was certainly irregular. C. C. P., sec. *236 217, sub sec. 2. Hartsfield v. Jones, 4 Jones, 309; Willimns v. Beasley, 13 Ired. 112. Judgment below reversed. Let this opinion be certified, to the end, &c. Per OueiaM. Judgment reversed.