Brown, Daniel & Co. v. Hawkins
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Motion to dismiss a warrant of attachment, heard 'before Waits, X, at Spring Term 1872, Edgecombe Court. • This case was before this Court at June Term, 1871, and and this Court decided as follows: “ order discharging the attachment modified by refusing the motion, but allowing the defendant to take the property, provided an undertaking be filed as required by C. C. P., sec. 213.” When the case was again before the Superior Court of Edgecombe, motion to dismiss was again…
Read the full summary
Motion to dismiss a warrant of attachment, heard 'before Waits, X, at Spring Term 1872, Edgecombe Court. • This case was before this Court at June Term, 1871, and and this Court decided as follows: “ order discharging the attachment modified by refusing the motion, but allowing the defendant to take the property, provided an undertaking be filed as required by C. C. P., sec. 213.” When the case was again before the Superior Court of Edgecombe, motion to dismiss was again made, and an affidavit as to facts existing at the time of the former motion,, was offered, and his Honor again gave…
1Opinion of the CourtBoyden, J.
The counsel for the defendant and his Honor liav.e wholly mistaken the effect of the decision of this Court in this very case made at June Term, 1871, and upon the very point now in question. Upon what ground it was supposed that without any change .in the facts of the case, as they existed at the time of the first decision, the Court below could rehear and revise the decision of this Court, we are at a loss to conceive. It is not to be tolerated that a party should bring in his case for a decision of the Court, and after an appeal to the Supreme Court and a decision against him, and when the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Penniman v. . DanielSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
- W. P. Love & Co. v. YoungSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1873