Dickey v. . Alley

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Dickey v. . Alley

15 N.C. 43

DecidedDecember 5, 1833

StatusPublished

This text of 15 N.C. 43 (Dickey v. . Alley) 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

Dickey v. . Alley, 15 N.C. 43 (N.C. 1833).

Pincite

Opinion

PLEA — non est factum. On the trial before his Honor Judge Daniel at Rutherford, on the Fall circuit of 1831, it (44) appeared that Abraham Crow, who was one of the obligors, was, at the time of his executing the bond, one of the Justices of the Peace composing the County Court of Rutherford. Upon this appearing his Honor nonsuited the plaintiffs, who appealed. The case comes directly within the principles settled in Justices v.Shannonhouse, 13 N.C. 6, and Justices v. Armstrong, 14 N.C. 284, and of other adjudications of this Court. The judgment of nonsuit must be affirmed.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

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

PLEA — non est factum. On the trial before his Honor Judge Daniel at Rutherford, on the Fall circuit of 1831, it (44) appeared that Abraham Crow, who was one of the obligors, was, at the time of his executing the bond, one of the Justices of the Peace composing the County Court of Rutherford. Upon this appearing his Honor nonsuited the plaintiffs, who appealed. The case comes directly within the principles settled in Justices v.Shannonhouse, 13 N.C. 6, and Justices v. Armstrong, 14 N.C. 284, and of other adjudications of this Court. The judgment of nonsuit must be affirmed.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 N.C. 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dickey-v-alley-nc-1833.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack