Russell v. . Fulton

Stacy, C. J. The regularity of the assessment, sale for taxes, foreclosure of tax sale certificate, and purchase by plaintiff are all admitted. Orange County v. Jenkins, 200 N. C., 202, 156 S. E., 774. It is the *702 contention of tbe defendants “that they have certain rights under tbe law as it existed in 1935, wbicb tbey may exercise at their option.” Whatever rights the defendants may have, if any, are not asserted in this action. They suggest on brief that, if so advised, they may yet redeem under C. S., 8038. As to this, the case of Hines v. Williams, 198 N. C., 420, 152 S. E., 39, would seem to be an authority against them. See, also, Drainage Comrs. v. Lumber Co., 193 N. C., 21, 136 S. E., 248. The judgment in the foreclosure proceeding, admittedly regular in all respects, is apparently binding on them as their predecessor in title, the sole owner of the land at the time, was a party to the proceeding. Hill v. Street, 215 N. C., 312, 1 S. E. (2d), 850. The suggestion that defendants are not bound by the foreclosure proceeding, because they had no personal knowledge thereof, although a matter of public record, is untenable. There was no occasion to make them parties as they had no interest in the land at the time. Orange County v. Wilson, 202 N. C., 424, 163 S. E., 113. On the record as presented, no error has been shown. Price v. Slagle, 189 N. C., 757, 128 S. E., 161. The judgment is supported by the stipulation of the parties. Affirmed.