Adams v. . Reeves

76 N.C. 412
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 5, 1877
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 76 N.C. 412 (Adams v. . Reeves) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Adams v. . Reeves, 76 N.C. 412 (N.C. 1877).

Opinion

*413 Eaircloth, J.

At Spring Term, 1876, of Davidson Superior Court, this cause was removed to Guilford County for trial and at the same term the following order was made; ■“ Rule on the plaintiff to give additional security or j ustify the present on or before-of next term of Guil-ford Superior Court.” At Fall Term of the latter Court the plaintiff justified his present security and the rule was •discharged. It was at the same Term suggested by defendant that the order made at Davidson was one for additional security only, and that the Clerk of Davidson County had not entered the order on the docket correctly. TIis Honor held that he could not go behind the record. The rule was then “ continued by consent until the present Term,” when a motion was made on the original affidavit for additional' security, which motion was refused by the Court in the exercise of discretionary power, and the original rule was not called up or otherwise referred to. It nowhere appears that an appeal has been taken from anything except from an appeal bond of defendant dated Dec. 15th, 1876.

We will however consider the case before us, and we are ■of opinion that His Honor was right in refusing to go behind the record. An amendment of a judgment or order should be in the Court where the record itself was made originally. To allow it to be done in another County would be inconvenient and would make the record inconsistent with itself in the same action and between the same parties.

The motion next made for additional security was purely a discretionary matter and we are not authorized to review it. Jones v. Cox, 1 Jones, 373.

There is no error. Let this be certified.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Narron v. Union Camp Corp.
344 S.E.2d 64 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1986)
Fayetteville Light & Power Co. v. Lessem Co.
93 S.E. 836 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)
Kenney v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.
82 S.E. 849 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1914)
Patterson v. . Walton
26 S.E. 43 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1896)
Nantahala Marble & Talc Co. v. Thomas
76 F. 59 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western North Carolina, 1896)
Faison v. . Johnson
78 N.C. 78 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1878)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
76 N.C. 412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-reeves-nc-1877.