Houser v. . Hampton
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Surry County, at the Spring Term, 1847, his Honor Judge Settle presiding. ^ The action is debt for the penalty of $500, for making a false return of “ not found,” to a capias ad responden-dum, at the suit of the present plaintiffs against James Bowles. Plea — nil debet. On the trial, the defendant insisted, that the plaintiffs could not unite in this action; but the. Court held otherwise.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Surry County, at the Spring Term, 1847, his Honor Judge Settle presiding. ^ The action is debt for the penalty of $500, for making a false return of “ not found,” to a capias ad responden-dum, at the suit of the present plaintiffs against James Bowles. Plea — nil debet. On the trial, the defendant insisted, that the plaintiffs could not unite in this action; but the. Court held otherwise. It then appeared in evidence, that the writ was delivered to a deputy of the defendant, and that, while he had it in his possession, he saw Bowles and had a…
1Opinion of the CourtRuffin, C. J.
The action, we think, lies for the two plaintiffs. The act gives the penalty, one moiety to the party grieved and the other moiety to him, or those that will sue for the same. These plaintiffs fill both characters, and are entitled to the whole recovery.
It was not correct, that the defendant’s liability depended at all upon the ignorance of the deputy, who made the return, of its falsehood, if in fact, it was false. That might, perhaps, affect the liability of that deputjr, if the defendant sought a recourse on his deputies for a loss sustained by him in the premises. But, as between the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Swain v. . PhelpsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1899
- Crumpler v. . GlissonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1817