Dail v. . Hawkins

Stact, C. J. Conceding, without deciding, that the order of abatement rendered at the January Term may have been erroneous, and therefore correctable by appeal, Moore v. Packer, 174 N. C., 665, 94 S. E., 449, still it is not perceived wherein it was irregularly entered. Fowler v. Fowler, 190 N. C., 536, 130 S. E., 315; Roberts v. Allman, *284 106 N. C., 391, 11 S. E., 424. An irregular judgment is one entered contrary to the course and practice of the court, Harrell v. Welstead, 206 N. C., 817, 175 S. E., 283; Finger v. Smith, 191 N. C., 818, 133 S. E., 186; Duffer v. Brunson, 188 N. C., 789, 125 S. E., 619; Carter v. Rountree, 109 N. C., 29, 13 S. E., 716; McIntosb N. C. P. & P., 736, while an erroneous judgment is one entered contrary to law. Harrell v. Welstead, supra; Finger v. Smith, supra; Bank v. Broom Co., 188 N. C., 508, 125 S. E., 12; McIntosh N. C. P. & P., 735. Relief from the former may be bad by motion in the cause, upon proper showing of irregularity and merit, Groves v. Ware, 182 N. C., 553, 109 S. E., 568, while the latter is subject to review only by appeal or certiorari, S. v. Moore, 210 N. C., 686; Hood, Comr., v. Stewart, 209 N. C., 424, 184 S. E., 36; S. v. Hollingsworth, 206 N. C., 739, 175 S. E., 99; Newton v. Mfg. Co., 206 N. C., 533, 174 S. E., 449. No appeal lies from one Superior Court to another. S. v. Lea, 203 N. C., 316, 166 S. E., 292; Wellons v. Lassiter, 200 N. C., 474, 157 S. E., 434. Nor is it perceived upon what ground the finding of excusable neglect can be sustained. It appears from the judgment that Edward L. Owens, counsel for plaintiff, “was present when the said plea in abatement was beard.” This precludes any idea of excusable neglect. C. S., 600; Carter v. Anderson, 208 N. C., 529, 181 S. E., 750; Kerr v. Bank, 205 N. C., 410, 171 S. E., 367; Land Co. v. Wooten, 177 N. C., 248, 98 S. E., 706; Roberts v. Allman, supra. Tbe rights of tbe plaintiff were not destroyed by tbe order of abatement. He is yet to be beard in tbe Harrison case, if so advised. He was made a party to said action upon defendants’ allegation that tbe collision in question was due to bis negligence, and be has been allowed to plead therein. ' Error.