Arrowood v. . Greenwood
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was a motion, heard before PbesoN, Judge, at the last Spring Term of Macon Superior Court. The suit had been pending for two or three terms, and at Spring term, 1857, the defendant was put under a rule to give security for the prosecution of his suit on or before the second day of the next term, or it was to stand dismissed ; at the next term it was ordered to be dismissed under the rule of the last term.
Read the full summary
This was a motion, heard before PbesoN, Judge, at the last Spring Term of Macon Superior Court. The suit had been pending for two or three terms, and at Spring term, 1857, the defendant was put under a rule to give security for the prosecution of his suit on or before the second day of the next term, or it was to stand dismissed ; at the next term it was ordered to be dismissed under the rule of the last term. At this term, on motion to reinstate the cause on the docket, it was made to appear that a sufficient prosecution bond was given at the time the writ was issued, and was on file at fall…
1Opinion of the CourtPearson, J.
We are of opinion that the error in dismissing the suit for the want of a prosecution bond, when, in fact, a sufficient bond was filed, cannot be taken advantage of by motion. The error of fact should be alleged by a writ of error.
Upon a careful examination of the cases, this seems to be a proper classification:
An interlocutory judgment, in favor of a plaintiff, may be amended, or set aside at any time before final judgment is entered, for the parties are still in court.
A judgment which is void, may be set aside and treated as a imllity, at any time; Pearson v. Nesbitt, 1 Dev. Rep. 315.
An…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Howell v. . HowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1847
- Hunt v. . DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1838