Guy v. . Harmon
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Eason v. Spence (N.C. 1950)
- Travis v. Johnston (N.C. 1956)
- BENEFICIAL MORTGAGE CO. OF NORTH CAROLINA INC. v. Barrington (N.C. Ct. App. 2004)
- Beneficial Mortgage Co. of North Carolina, Inc. v. Barrington & Jones Law Firm, P.A. (N.C. Ct. App. 2004)
- Collins v. R. L. Coleman & Co. (N.C. 1964)
- Page v. Miller (N.C. 1960)
- Riddick v. . Davis (N.C. 1941)
- County of Buncombe v. Arbogast (N.C. 1934)
- Street v. . Hildebrand (N.C. 1933)
- Street v. Hildebrand (N.C. 1933)
- Hill v. . Street (N.C. 1939)
- Buncombe County v. . Penland (N.C. 1934)
- Lockridge v. . Smith (N.C. 1934)
- Beaufort County v. . Mayo (N.C. 1934)
- Lockridge v. Smith (N.C. 1934)
- County of Buncombe v. Penland (N.C. 1934)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Manifestly the interest of Yirgie Harmon and ber husband, Tom Harmon, in the land has been properly divested, because the judgment is conclusive upon the said defendants to the extent of any interest they may have in the land.
The minor owners of the land were not made parties to the suit unless newspaper publication be sufficient for such purpose. Foreclosure is an equitable proceeding and the law as interpreted and applied in this State, has uniformly commanded a day in court for parties in interest. Gammon v. Johnson, 126 N. C., 64, 35 S. E., 185; Jones v. Williams, 155 N. C., 179, 71 S. E., 222; Madison County v. Coxe, ante, 58. Indeed, this Court in Hines v. Williams, 198 N. C., 420, 152 S. E., 39, in approving a judgment divesting the interest of minors in a tax foreclosure, declared: “It appears that the infant defendants and all persons having* a vested or contingent interest in the land have had their day in court.”
The plaintiff is not saved by the application of the principles enunciated in Orange County v. Wilson, 202 N. C., 425, 163 S. E., 13, for the reason the trustees of petitioners “were parties defendant and were served with process.”
Modified and Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.