(After stating the case.) The question for our determination is, was the judgment in this action void absolutely from a defect pf jurisdiction in the superior court to grant it, or voidable from some privilege or exemption of defendant, or other thing for which the jurisdiction might have been abated, or from being entered irregularly and contrary to the course and practice of the court. The superior courtis a court of general common law jurisdiction, and its power extends to all actions founded on contract and otherwise, which has been or may be allotted to it by the general assembly not in conflict with the provisions of the constitution. Art. 4, § 12. And said courts having, under the apportionment of power as now conferred, jurisdiction extending to actions on contracts wherever the principal sum demanded is above two hundred dollars, there was no defect of jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff’s action and the judgment rendered was not void. Branch v. Houston, Busb , 85.
Is the judgment voidable? It might have been prevented, if W. M. Walton had appeared and set up, by plea or answer, (or perhaps on motion to dismiss) the pendency of the suit in equity in which remedy might be had, in abatement of this action, but failing to appear and make the defence, the judgment entered against him being in a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter, the door was closed as to him. Branch v. Houston, Busb., 85; Smith v. Moore, 79, N. C., 82.
Was the judgment taken, irregular and contrary to the course and practice of the court ? and if so, on whose motion may it be vacated and set aside ? The suit was begun by summons, the service was acknowledged in writing, and complaint filed; and defendant not appearing, judgment by default final was signed by the judge presiding, and the same constitutes a part of the judgment roll, and it thus appears that it was taken according to the regular course and practice of the court, and cannot now be set aside at *30the instance of the defendant. It is settled that even if the judgment were irregular, a stranger could not intervene and be heard to move its vacation. Jacobs v. Burgwyn, 63 N. C., 196; Rollins v. Henry, 78 N. C., 342.
It was error therefore in the court below to vacate the judgment of the plaintiff, and the judgment of PIis Honor vacating the same is reversed with the costs of this court against Moore, Jenkins & Co., and others making the motion in the cause.
It may be that the junior creditors of W. M. Walton may have remedy to put the plaintiff’s judgment primarily on the land for which it is the purchase money, so as to leave the other lands for payment of their judgments, or if the other lands shall be sold for plaintiff’s debt, they may be entitled to be subrogated to the security of the plaintiff. But as tó this matter this court will not undertake to advise.
Error. Reversed.