Croom and Others v. . Mousley
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Debt for a penalty in not taking a prosecution bond, tried before Buxton, J., at Moore, Spring Term 1869. The plaintiffs here had been defendants in the suit in which, as was alleged, no prosecution bond had been taken. It appeared that the writ in the former case had been handed in blank signed by the Clerk, to an Attorney, who afterwards in the Clerk’s absence filled it up; and that subsequently it was executed, returned and filed.
Read the full summary
Debt for a penalty in not taking a prosecution bond, tried before Buxton, J., at Moore, Spring Term 1869. The plaintiffs here had been defendants in the suit in which, as was alleged, no prosecution bond had been taken. It appeared that the writ in the former case had been handed in blank signed by the Clerk, to an Attorney, who afterwards in the Clerk’s absence filled it up; and that subsequently it was executed, returned and filed. It was also shown that the Attorney, before issuing it, had taken a prosecution bond, but that it was not filed in Court until the second term after the return…
1Opinion of the CourtPearson, C. J.
We are of opinion that the act of the Clerk in signing the blank writ and handing it to the Attorney, was sufficient authority for him to fill the blanks; and that after the blanks were thus filled, it became a regular and and sufficient writ, like endorsing a note in blank, or signing a promissory note in blank, with authority to insert the true amount.
But at all events, as this paper was returned to the Clerk and received by Mm and regularly docketed by him as the writ or leading process in the case, by these acts he recognized and adopted the writ as regularly issued, and is concluded from…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Carson v. . WoodrowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
- Lucas v. BrownMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- Carson v. WoodrowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912