Holmes v. Sackett, Belcher & Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
ORIGINAL Attachment, before Gilliam J., at Spring Term 1868 of the Superior Court of Rowan. The attachment was returnable to Fall Term 1867, and at the next term, after publication, the defendants appeared by attorney and moved to be allowed to plead without executing a replevy bond. ' His Honor declined to grant the motion, and the defendants appealed.
Read the full summary
ORIGINAL Attachment, before Gilliam J., at Spring Term 1868 of the Superior Court of Rowan. The attachment was returnable to Fall Term 1867, and at the next term, after publication, the defendants appeared by attorney and moved to be allowed to plead without executing a replevy bond. ' His Honor declined to grant the motion, and the defendants appealed. The exception-in the Act of 1866-67, c. 63, applies only to residents of this State who are about to remove themselves or property beyond the limits of this State. Then, had the plaintiffs sued the defendants while commorant here, by personal…
1Opinion of the CourtPearsoN, C. J.
In this case the defendants seek to carry the doctrine “cm bono?” (Why require a useless act?) farther than is done in either Bunting v. Wright, Phil. 295, or McKay v. Ray, ante, 47. It now becomes necessary to construe the Attachment Act, Rev. Code, ch. 7, in connection with the Act of 1866-67, and to determine how far the former is affected by the latter.
The above cases, however have cleared off the ground, and make it much easier to decide the question now presented, than if it had been sprung upon us before any construction had been put on the act “ To abolish imprisonment for debt. ” It…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Tate v. . MoreheadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1871