Smith on Demise of Kelly v. Spencer
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Moore County, at Fall Term, 1841, his Honor Judge Pearson presiding. On the trial of this ejectment, it was admitted that the defendant was in possession.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Moore County, at Fall Term, 1841, his Honor Judge Pearson presiding. On the trial of this ejectment, it was admitted that the defendant was in possession. It appeared that one Laverty and Gantly obtained a judgment against one Munroe and others, for $480 70, at September Term, 1835, of Cumberland County Court, that a fi. fa. tested of that term issued against the defendants to the Sheriff of Moore county, returnable to December Term, and was returned by the Sheriff “ levied oil the land in dispute — too late to hand to sell.” Whereupon, a venditioni…
1Opinion of the CourtRuffin, C. J.
Supposing the lien created by the levy of the fieri facias, to have been once lost, the court would be reluctant to-hold, that it was revived by the order made in December,-1839, and1 the proceedings under it, to the prejudice of a title acquired by the defendant at a time when the lien was extinct or dormant. It must be admitted that it seems to be clearly settled in England, that the statute, West. 2, c. 45, only requires a scire facias to revive a judgment when no execution is sued within a year and day ; and that, if an execution be sued within that period, and be and filed, another…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Clifton v. OwensSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- Clifton v. . OwensSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- Cowen v. . WithrowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
- Jeffreys v. . HocuttSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
- Amyett v. . BackhouseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1819
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.