Legal Opinion

M'Rae v. M'Rae

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 15, 1838PublishedCited by 1 opinion

This was an action of Assumpsit, for work and labor -done by the plaintiff for the defendants’ intestate, commenced by warrant, and carried by successive appeals to the Superior Court, where it was tried at Montgomery on the last circuit, before his Honor, Judge Dick — Plea—a set-off.

Read the full summary

This was an action of Assumpsit, for work and labor -done by the plaintiff for the defendants’ intestate, commenced by warrant, and carried by successive appeals to the Superior Court, where it was tried at Montgomery on the last circuit, before his Honor, Judge Dick — Plea—a set-off. The plaintiff in his account, charged the defendant’s intestate with six months’ labor performed, at twelve dollars and a half per month, amounting to seventy five dollars, and in the same account gave the defendants’ intestate credit for sundry articles had by him in payment, during the time he was performing…

1Opinion of the Court

Rüffijv, Chief Justice.

If the objectionto the jurisdiction were valid, it comes too late after a plea in bar. — But we think the matter does not constitute a good objection, if it had been taken in apt time.

The warrant is for a less sum than thirty pounds, which is demanded as a balance due for work and labor done. The. book debt act, 1756, (1 Rev. Stat. c. 15, sec. 1) requires the plaintiff to declare upon oath, that he has given the defendant all just credits; and the acts creating and extending the jurisdiction of a single magistrate expressly provide the remedy by warrant, not only for…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Boyle v. . RobbinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1874

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API