© 1994 - 2007
Against the Grain

Site Design, Hosting and Logo
by DNA Web Media

SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

*************************************

Appellant/Plaintiffs, Albert Coombs and Appellant/Intervener, Paul Burge hereby Notice this Supreme Court of a Nihil Dicit application. We move this procedure before this court so that it can order the warranted judgement(s)in favor of Appellants petitions for all relief and motions sought in Appellant pleadings. Appellants further request nominal, compensatory, punitive and any other damages that the court deem Just and Proper, inclusive of reasonable compensation for "time" necessarily expended to prosecute this action. Punitive damages are in order due to the Respondents frivolous and non-responsive alleged "answers" to Appellants submissions throughout the 14-month ordeal; which directly caused unnecessary delay and the subsequent appeal to an already overburdened Supreme Court.

SUPPORT FOR NIHIL DICIT JUDGEMENT

1. "Nihil Dicit. He says nothing. The name of the judgement which may be taken as of course against a defendant who omits to plead or answer the plaintiffs declaration or complaint within the time limited. In some jurisdictions it is otherwise known as judgement `for want of plea.'" Black's Law 5Th, page 942

2. "Nihil Dicit Judgement. Judgement entered against defendant, in proceeding in which he is in court but has not filed an answer, is a "nil dicit judgement"; all error of pleading being waived, court examines petition only to determine if it attempts to state a cause of action within the court's jurisdiction." Cite omitted Black's Law 5Th, page 943

3. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Jurisdictional statements entered in the Record and Brief on Appeal. The Appellees have not responded to the Record on Appeal nor to the Appellant's Brief appropriately noticed and "served" upon Respondents, and subsequently filed in this Court on December 15, 1999. The allotted time limit to respond of 30 days has long since expired. Therefore the Nil Dicit Judgement is appropriate and in fact in order and therefore, this demand is made through this Court to satisfy the relief requested as presented in the Appellant's Brief.

4. Appellants rely on the use of this process and in good faith proffer to this court its "remedy" based on a thorough reading of the seventeen North Carolina cases on this subject, some of which are infra;

R. M. OATES v. W. G. GRAY, 66 N.C. 442 (1872) Supreme Court of North Carolina. ". An entry on the docket of "general issue, stat, lim, with leave," is not sufficient pleading and in the discretion of the Judge below would authorize judgment of nil dicit."

WESTON v. LUMBER CO., 162 N.C. 165 (1913) 77 S.E. 430 "It is, therefore, not necessary, says a great law writer on this subject, that the judgment should have been awarded upon the decision of an issue, for where it is given for want of a plea, which is judgment by nil dicit, or where it one by non sum informatus, or by confession, or by default, the conclusiveness of it is the same as if the fact had been actually (203) contested by plea or traverse. Stephen on Pleading (9 Am. Ed. by Heard), pp. 109 and 195. This he calls estoppel by record. There was no answer in Mills v. Witherington, supra, and consequently no actual litigation of the title and no specific reference to it in the pleadings."

5. Appellees are now estopped from entering any rebuttal at all as they have forfeited and waived that right by their inaction and an estoppel now constructively exists. This Court has only now to rule on the evidence of fact and law submitted by Appellants. Appellees were uncooperative of the Administrative process below having failed to respond to the fact and law placed upon the record. They simply offered "general" denials absent the specificity, procedure and clarity, required by law. And NOW, they thumb their noses at our states highest court by failing even to recognize its high importance by ignoring the process placed upon its record.
HOKE v. EDWARDS AND OTHERS, 46 N.C. 532 (1854) 2 S.E. 70
"Upon a default or a nil dicit, on an action of debt, in a Justice's judgment, the plaintiff is entitled to a final judgment, at the time when the default is made, and need not execute an inquiry before a jury."

6. Since a nil dicit judgement has greater force than a default, and the fact that Appellee's never responded to the three notices to Appeal on the Record; and only responded at the PUC level with [improper form] blanket denials of no substance; and now has not even participated in this Appeal action by entering any "response" at all, compels that a nihil dicit judgement issue instanter. "Judgement taken against party who withdraws his answer is judgement nihil dicit, which amounts to confession of cause of action stated, and carries with it, more strongly than judgement by default, admission of justice in plaintiff's case." Black's Law 5Th Nihil Dicit

7. From the General Statutes of North Carolina 24-6. Clerk to ascertain interest upon default judgment on bond, covenant, bill, note or signed account. When a suit is instituted on a single bond, a covenant for the payment of money, bill of exchange, promissory note, or a signed account, and the defendant does not plead to issue thereon, upon judgment, the clerk of the court shall ascertain the interest due by law, without a writ of inquiry, and the amount shall be included in the final judgment of the court as damages, which judgment shall be rendered therein in the manner prescribed by 24-5.(1797, c. 475, P.R.; R.C., c. 31, s. 91; Code, s. 531; Rev., s. 1956; C.S., s. 2310.)

8. Wherefore, Appellants Coombs and Burge, demand, as in a claim of right, an assertion of a substantive legal right, that this court issue a Nihil Dicit Judgement in favor of Appellants on each Relief Demanded in the Appellant's Brief and this Motion.