Wilson v. . Fowler
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Action to Recover Land — Undertaking—Defence Bond — Statute. This is an action to recover land, tried before Clark, J, at Pall Term, 1889, of Haywood Superior Court. The defendant made his affidavit, stating therein that he was not worth the sum of two hundred dollars, the amount of the undertaking required of him before being allowed to plead, answer, or demur, in any property whatsoever, and that he was unable to give the same.
Read the full summary
Action to Recover Land — Undertaking—Defence Bond — Statute. This is an action to recover land, tried before Clark, J, at Pall Term, 1889, of Haywood Superior Court. The defendant made his affidavit, stating therein that he was not worth the sum of two hundred dollars, the amount of the undertaking required of him before being allowed to plead, answer, or demur, in any property whatsoever, and that he was unable to give the same. His counsel certified that they had examined his case, and were of opinion that he had “ a good defence to the action.” It appeared to the Court that the defendant…
1Opinion of the CourtMerrimon, C. J.
— after stating the case: The proviso of the statute (The Code, §237) dispenses altogether with the undertaking required of the defendant in actions to recover land or the possession thereof by that section. The terms of the proviso are clear, explicit and exclusive. It declares “ that no such undertaking shall be required ” in the case provided for. The words “ no such ” are used in the broad sense of not any like that required. There is nothing in the statute that suggests the contrary, or that an undertaking for a less sum than two hundred dollars in amount may be required in any case. The…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dempsey v. . RhodesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
- Taylor v. . AppleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
3Cited by1 opinion
- Union Bank of Richmond v. Board of CommissionersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895