Legal Opinion

Davis v. . Marshall

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 5, 1822PublishedCited by 4 opinions

From Warren. A judgjiieiit having; been ©bivjiwd pgsmsat the Defend ant, Marshal!, in the cotfey Oocri of Tfeivea, a %vii oí ca. sa. issue's! thereon, a*ad B'ir,Mrasim:'! gave bond purweMit to the provisions of the Muí: far fee i-cafei of honest ddsfe'-sfe its which the ISrfutid,«it, Ifesseí.’., bcoarae surety.

Read the full summary

From Warren. A judgjiieiit having; been ©bivjiwd pgsmsat the Defend ant, Marshal!, in the cotfey Oocri of Tfeivea, a %vii oí ca. sa. issue's! thereon, a*ad B'ir,Mrasim:'! gave bond purweMit to the provisions of the Muí: far fee i-cafei of honest ddsfe'-sfe its which the ISrfutid,«it, Ifesseí.’., bcoarae surety. This bond was rfennued is 'Ccnsfe and, m the ab» Share of Tare!" fe!, a fed ynerfe a an wwfeened Mraiusi Russo! 5, who, on a SMbse.pioife, ifey of (S'a ter is moved to set aside the judyurtoni, an.í Íhat Sac Einwyhi: be permití»:? to surrender Marshall, in dfeefesige of Itknsellf, The…

1Opinion of the CourtHall, Judge

It seems that the Appellant made no effort, cither to bring up the appeal himself, or cause it to he done by any other person. He depended upon the Clerk of the County Court, he says, to bring it up, because (as the Clerk admits) he had been in the habit of bringing up all appeals taken from the County Court, but omitted, through forgetfulness, to bring up this one. Other instances of forgetfulness like this, to which the human character is liable, particularly as a good deal might be depending upon it, should have taught the Appellant the necessity of attending to the business himself. In…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Howell v. . BarnesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1870
  2. Barton, Ex ParteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1874
  3. Brickell v. . BassSuperior Court of North Carolina · 1794
  4. Steele v. . HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1816

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API