Johnson v. . Kenneday
Supreme Court of North Carolina
MotioN for a rule to amerce the Sheriff of Richmond county, heard before Buxton, J., at Fall Term, 1873, of the Superior Court. On the 25th August, 1873, a summons was placed in the hands of the sheriff, who returned it on the 25th of the ensuing October, endorsed “ Not executed for the want of fees.”
Read the full summary
MotioN for a rule to amerce the Sheriff of Richmond county, heard before Buxton, J., at Fall Term, 1873, of the Superior Court. On the 25th August, 1873, a summons was placed in the hands of the sheriff, who returned it on the 25th of the ensuing October, endorsed “ Not executed for the want of fees.” Plaintiffs contending this to be an insufficient return, moved for a rule against the sheriff, which motion the Court refused, upon the ground that the sheriff was entitled to his fees in advance. From this judgment plaintiffs appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtSettle, J.
This was a motion for a ru-feto amerce a sheriff for an insufficient return upon a summons.
The sheriff returns, as his excuse for not executing the summons, that his fees had not been paid.
In Jones v. Gupton, 65 N. C., 48, it is held that a sheriff, since the adoption of the C. C. P., sees. 75 and 555, is not required to execute process until his fees are paid or tendered by the person at whose instance the service is to be rendered.
But as the act of 1870-71, ch. 139, repeals the whole of title XXI of the C. C. P., in which the 555th section is inclúded, we presume that the plaintiff supposed…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Jones v. . GuptonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1871