Tyler v. Morris
Supreme Court of North Carolina
The defendant Morris, made a motion in the Superior Court of Law, for the county of New Hanover, on the last circuit, before his Honor Judge Toomer, for a writ of error coram nobis, to reverse a judgment obtained in the said court by the plaintiff Tyler, against him, for error in fact; viz: that Tyler was dead at the time the judgment was rendered; and also for a supersedeas to the execution issued thereon.
Read the full summary
The defendant Morris, made a motion in the Superior Court of Law, for the county of New Hanover, on the last circuit, before his Honor Judge Toomer, for a writ of error coram nobis, to reverse a judgment obtained in the said court by the plaintiff Tyler, against him, for error in fact; viz: that Tyler was dead at the time the judgment was rendered; and also for a supersedeas to the execution issued thereon. The attorney who obtained the judgment for Tyler, was in court, and resisted the motion, denying that Tyler was dead. His Honor refused the motion, giving as a reason that it did not…
1Opinion of the Court
Daniel Judge,
after stating the case as above, proceeded as follows: A writ of error coram nobis, is not a writ of right. Before it is allowed, there must be an affidavit of some error in fact; by which, in case the fact to be assigned for error is true, the plaintiff’s right of action will be destroyed. Birch v. Triste, 8 East. 415. The court, in this case, was of the opinion that the affidavits did not lay a foundation to authorise it to grant the writ. This opinion *488of the court was one of discretion, upon the facts disclosed ^1<3 a®davits. As the affidavits did disclose probable grounds…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Nickels v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1923
- Massie v. . HaineySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
- Ernst v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
- State v. WallaceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- State v. Richardson and TaylorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1922
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.