Statewide County NcArchives News.....Supreme Court Decisions August 16, 1826
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Carolyn Shank Carolynshank@msn.com December 2, 2007, 2:04 pm

Aug. 16, 1826  North Carolina Journal August 16, 1826
   SUPREME COURT -- JESSE PERSON v. THE STATE BANK, from Wake, Judgment 
affirmed. [Twenty warrants were brought by the plaintiff on Bank Notes in the 
whole amounting to $104. Judgments were obtained and appeals taken by the 
Defendants. In the County Court the cases were ordered to be consolidated into 
one, and from this order of consolidation, the Plaintiff appealed to the 
Superior court, where the order was affirmed. Held, that the Court had the 
power to make the order, and the power being possessed, it was mere matter of 
discretion whether it should be exerted in this case and upon what terms.]
   BRUCE and others v. CHILD, from Orange, in Equity, Bill dismissed with 
costs. [When a bill is filed to surcharge and falsify an account stated 19 
bears before, the delay must be well accounted for, to repel the presumption 
arising from this acquiescnce. For this purpose, it is not enough that the 
mistake sought to be rectified was discovered within a few months previous to 
exhibiting the bill, but it should appear why the discovery was not made 
sooner. 
   The bill alleged a certainsum received by the Defendant, larger than that 
charged in the stated account. The Defendant in  her answer stated that her 
faculties were impaired by age and infirmities and after so great a length of 
time since the transaction (about 40 years) she could not speak with certainty 
to matters charged in the bill, and said in answer to the particular error, 
that she believed the sum charged in the stated account to be the sum she 
received from her attorney, J. N., and no other. The attorney in his 
deposition swore that he had paid her a larger sum. Held, that the charge was 
sufficiently denied to bring the case within the rule, that a decree will not 
be made against a positive denial, on the unsupported testimony of a single 
witness.]
   DOE, lessee of BURDEN v. McKENZIE et al of Wayne County, judgment confirmed.
[A levy on chattels vests in the Sheriff a special property, and this it is 
that enable him to sell after the return of the writ, and without a ven exp., 
but a levy on lands gives him neither property nor right of possession -- he 
has only a naked authority to sell, and a sale transfers to the purchaser only 
the right of property to which the Sheriff cannot add an actual possession 
without the consent of the tenant. Therefore, a sale made by the Sheriff of 
real estate, after the return of fi fa and without a new writ, is a sale 
without authority, and passes nothing to the purchaser.
    It seems a levy on real estate, shewn only by an endorsement on the writ, 
and such endorsement, made after the return day of the process is not valid.]
    GOVERNOR TO THE USE OF HOLCOMB v. MARTIN and others, from Hertford. 
Judgment reversed and rule for a new trial made absolute. 
    Action upon the act of 1782, ch. 69 (N. R.) against D. and others, 
Justices of the Peace, for committing an orphan's estate without taking 
sufficient security from the Guardian. The Plaintiff produced the record of 
the County Court, which stated that Court was open. "D and the other 
Defendants present," and stating several acts of the Court, mentioned the 
appointment of the Guardian. -- Held, that this record was not evidence that 
D. and the other Justices named as present at the opening of the Court, were 
on the bench at the time the order was made appointing the Guardian.


File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/statewide/newspapers/supremec311nw.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.poppet.org/ncfiles/

File size: 4.0 Kb