Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina

Fox v. . Steele

4 N.C. 48

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction
North Carolina
Date
1814-01-05
Topic
bankruptcy

This is a scire facias against the defendants, who became securities for the prosecution of a writ of certiorari. The plaintiff failed in his action, and it is contended that the bond is void upon the ground the court below had no power to require the plaintiff to give bond for the prosecution; that the act of the General Assembly had not directed the clerk to take such security, and that the authority of the court was usurped. It is also objected that if the bond should be considered valid, it cannot be enforced by scire facias. *Page 40 We are unanimously of opinion that there is nothing in the first objection; that it is in the power of the court, and that it is its duty to exercise it in every case, upon application, where bond has been omitted by the clerk, or where the obligors are insufficient. As to the second objection, we are of opinion that this bond not being matter of record, a sci. fa. will not lie, unless directed by statute; and that however general the practice may have been, and however convenient, yet in point of law it cannot be sustained, and that there be judgment for defendants. NOTE. — See Waller v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Fox v. . Steele. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion
FOXv. STEELE,4 N.C. 48(1814)
FOX v. STEELE AND HAUSER. — 1 L. R., 379.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
(January Term, 1814.)
1. If the clerk of the county court neglect to take a bond from the party previously to issuing acertiorarias directed by the act of 1810 (1 Rev. Stat., ch. 4, sec. 16), the Superior Court has power to take bond with good security for the prosecution of the suit.

2. Ascire faciaswill not lie on a bond given upon obtaining a writ ofcertiorari.
JOHN VENABLES commenced an action in the county court of STOKES against the plaintiffs. The cause was removed to this Court by acertiorariobtained by the plaintiff Venables. By an order of court, the plaintiff Venables was directed to give bond and security to prosecute his suit with effect, and did so, the defendants becoming his (49) securities in said bond. The question referred to the Supreme Court is, "Will asci. faciaslie on the prosecution bond above described?"
SEAWELL, J.
This is ascire faciasagainst the defendants, who became securities for the prosecution of a writ ofcertiorari. The plaintiff failed in his action, and it is contended that the bond is void upon the ground the court below had no power to require the plaintiff to give bond for the prosecution; that the act of the General Assembly had not directed the clerk to take such security, and that the authority of the court was usurped. It is also objected that if the bond should be considered valid, it cannot be enforced byscire facias.Page 40

We are unanimously of opinion that there is nothing in the first objection; that it is in the power of the court, and that it is its duty to exercise it in every case, upon application, where bond has been omitted by the clerk, or where the obligors are insufficient.

As to the second objection, we are of opinion that this bond not being matter of record, asci. fa. will not lie, unless directed by statute; and that however general the practice may have been, and however convenient, yet in point of law it cannot be sustained, and that there be judgment for defendants.

NOTE. — SeeWaller v. Brodie,2 N.C. 28, and the note thereto. Also,Rosseau v. Thornberry, post, 326;Estes v. Hairston,12 N.C. 354;Speight v. Wooten,14 N.C. 327.

Under the act of 1810 (1 Rev. Stat., ch. 4, sec. 16) it is the duty of the clerk of the county court, and not that of the clerk of the Superior Court, to take bond and security upon a writ ofcertioraribeing granted.Edmondson v. Washington,12 N.C. 252.Cited: McDowell v. Bradley,30 N.C. 93;Russell v. Saunders,48 N.C. 432;Wall v. Fairly,66 N.C. 386.

(50)