Page v. Farmer.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an action of debt on a penal statute, and after verdict, it was, moved in arrest of judgment, that the writ ivas not in the debet and detinet, but in the detinet only. The writ called upon Farmer to answer Page of a plea “ that he render to him the, sum of fifty pounds, due, under an act of the General Assembly to him, and which, from him he unjustly detains to his damage, &c.”
Read the full summary
This was an action of debt on a penal statute, and after verdict, it was, moved in arrest of judgment, that the writ ivas not in the debet and detinet, but in the detinet only. The writ called upon Farmer to answer Page of a plea “ that he render to him the, sum of fifty pounds, due, under an act of the General Assembly to him, and which, from him he unjustly detains to his damage, &c.” The Plaintiff contended that the Court must necessarily adjudge from the phraseology of the writ, that the action was in the debet and detinet, and was therefore such an action as the defendant contended…
1Opinion of the CourtTayuoii, Chief Justice
it is not deemed necessary to decide the question, whether a vicious writ can betaken advantage of after verdict: or whether the statutes of jeofails extend to actions upon penal statutes. The construction of this writ, which presents itself to the Court as the just, and^noces-sary one, and derived from the unavoidable import of tlie words, renders it a writ in the debet and detivet. Though not precisely in the form that the usage of the law has annexed to such process, yet the words m winch it is expressed will not, without a strained interpretation, convey a meaning substantially different.…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hawkins v. . HawkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1814