Den on Dem. of Reid v. Largent

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Den on Dem. of Reid v. Largent

49 N.C. 454

DecidedAugust 5, 1857

StatusPublished

This text of 49 N.C. 454 (Den on Dem. of Reid v. Largent) 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

Den on Dem. of Reid v. Largent, 49 N.C. 454 (N.C. 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

Nash, C. J.

This case is, in the principle decided, covered by that of Mordecai v. Speight, 3 Dev. 428. It was there adjudged, that it would be dangerous to purchasers, and ruinous to plaintiffs in executions, to require bidders at a sheriff’s sale, to see that the officer has complied with all his duties in making the sale. In that case, the sale was not opened on Monday, the sale day, but was postponed, until Tuesday, when it took place. His Honor, below, instructed the jury, that as the sheriff’s sale, did not commence on Monday, the return day of the writ, his authority to sell expired with that day, and that a sale made by him, on Tuesday, was void. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment for error. In Pope v. Bradley, 3 Hawks’ Rep. 16, cited and approved in Mordecai *455 v. Speight, the Chief Justice in delivering the opinion of the Court says, “that on no principle could an irregularity in the adj ournment, annul the sale; upon the ground, that the act was directory to the sheriff, and gives a penalty against him.” Here the sale was on "Wednesday of Court, after the return day.

Pee CueiaM. There is no error, and Judgment is affirmed.

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

Nash, C. J.

This case is, in the principle decided, covered by that of Mordecai v. Speight, 3 Dev. 428. It was there adjudged, that it would be dangerous to purchasers, and ruinous to plaintiffs in executions, to require bidders at a sheriff’s sale, to see that the officer has complied with all his duties in making the sale. In that case, the sale was not opened on Monday, the sale day, but was postponed, until Tuesday, when it took place. His Honor, below, instructed the jury, that as the sheriff’s sale, did not commence on Monday, the return day of the writ, his authority to sell expired with that day, and that a sale made by him, on Tuesday, was void. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment for error. In Pope v. Bradley, 3 Hawks’ Rep. 16, cited and approved in Mordecai *455 v. Speight, the Chief Justice in delivering the opinion of the Court says, “that on no principle could an irregularity in the adj ournment, annul the sale; upon the ground, that the act was directory to the sheriff, and gives a penalty against him.” Here the sale was on "Wednesday of Court, after the return day.

Pee CueiaM. There is no error, and Judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 N.C. 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/den-on-dem-of-reid-v-largent-nc-1857.