Cox v. . Hamilton

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Cox v. . Hamilton

69 N.C. 30

DecidedJune 5, 1873

StatusPublished

This text of 69 N.C. 30 (Cox v. . Hamilton) 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

Cox v. . Hamilton, 69 N.C. 30 (N.C. 1873).

Pincite

Opinion

Reade, J.

Isler, the principal of the defendant, had recovered of the plaintiff, Cox, a tract of land, and at Spring Term, 1872, of the Court below, Isler had judgment and a writ of possession. The present plaintiff, who was defendant in that suit, appealed to the Supreme Court, the effect of which would have been to suspend the writ of possession, if the appellant had given the necessary undertaking. But not doing that, the execution or .writ of possession was not suspended. C. C. P., sec. 307. At June Term, 1872, of this Court the judgment was affirmed, and after that Isler had his writ of possession executed, and he went into the possession of the land and the crop, by his agent, the present defendant. Under this state of facts we are of the opinion that Isler was entitled to the crop growing on the land in 1872, when he went into possession, and that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the same.

There will be judgment here, as agreed, against the plaintiff on his undertaking for $250 in favor of the defendant.

Per Curiam. Judgment accordingly.

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

Reade, J.

Isler, the principal of the defendant, had recovered of the plaintiff, Cox, a tract of land, and at Spring Term, 1872, of the Court below, Isler had judgment and a writ of possession. The present plaintiff, who was defendant in that suit, appealed to the Supreme Court, the effect of which would have been to suspend the writ of possession, if the appellant had given the necessary undertaking. But not doing that, the execution or .writ of possession was not suspended. C. C. P., sec. 307. At June Term, 1872, of this Court the judgment was affirmed, and after that Isler had his writ of possession executed, and he went into the possession of the land and the crop, by his agent, the present defendant. Under this state of facts we are of the opinion that Isler was entitled to the crop growing on the land in 1872, when he went into possession, and that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the same.

There will be judgment here, as agreed, against the plaintiff on his undertaking for $250 in favor of the defendant.

Per Curiam. Judgment accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 N.C. 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-hamilton-nc-1873.