Aycock v. . Harrison
Supreme Court of North Carolina
MotioN for a procedendo, beard before Barnes, J., at Pali Term 1866 of tbe Superior Court of Wayne. At August Term 1861, of the County Court of Wayne,, the plaintiff had obtained a judgment against the defendants. Successive executions were duly issued thereupon, and, previously to May Term 1866, a levy had been made upon certain land. From May Term 1866, a ven. ex. was issued, and at-August Term thereafter, it was returned “ No sale on account of the stay law.”
Read the full summary
MotioN for a procedendo, beard before Barnes, J., at Pali Term 1866 of tbe Superior Court of Wayne. At August Term 1861, of the County Court of Wayne,, the plaintiff had obtained a judgment against the defendants. Successive executions were duly issued thereupon, and, previously to May Term 1866, a levy had been made upon certain land. From May Term 1866, a ven. ex. was issued, and at-August Term thereafter, it was returned “ No sale on account of the stay law.” At the term last mentioned, the plaintiff" moved for an alias writ of ven. ex., but the motion was refused. He thereupon appealed,…
1Opinion of the CourtReade, J.
The return of the sheriff, on the venditioni exponas issued from May term 1866 of the County Court, “No sale on account of the stay law,” was without warrant of law. The plaintiff’s motion at November term, 1866, for an alias ven. ex. ought to have been allowed. The plaintiff’s motion at Fall Term of the Superior Court, 1866, lor a writ of pro-cedendo ought. to have been allowed. The refusal of the motion by his Honor was error. But it was an error which can not now be cured; for the Court, in which the judgment and execution were, has been abolished. There is, therefore, no Court to which…
2Cited by1 opinion
- stephen.W. Isler v. . Isaac BrownSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1872