Good v. . Lawrence

Court of King's Bench

Good v. . Lawrence

1 N.C. 759

DecidedJuly 5, 1793

StatusPublished

This text of 1 N.C. 759 (Good v. . Lawrence) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of King's Bench primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Good v. . Lawrence, 1 N.C. 759 (kingsbench 1793).

Pincite

Opinion

1. It ought to have been only consideratum.

And the court ruled that this was error. The judgment is the act of the court, and the shortest is the best. If the form was not strictly adhered to, there would be no end of new and senseless words; and by and *Page 760 by, it would require to have a new judgment in order to expound a former one.

2. Damages are increased without the assent of the parties, or the request of the plaintiff, and the request is not well alleged, because it is not necessary to have a request for judgment of damages assessed by the jurors. A request in an improper time is like no request, as an averment at an undue time. Walsingham's case. Plowd.

JONES and WHITLOCK, JJ., concurred. Ideo judicium reversatur. Noy, 89; Bendl., 198; 1 Roll., 771; Poph., 212; antea, pp. 685, 689; postea, p. 767.

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

1. It ought to have been only consideratum.

And the court ruled that this was error. The judgment is the act of the court, and the shortest is the best. If the form was not strictly adhered to, there would be no end of new and senseless words; and by and *Page 760 by, it would require to have a new judgment in order to expound a former one.

2. Damages are increased without the assent of the parties, or the request of the plaintiff, and the request is not well alleged, because it is not necessary to have a request for judgment of damages assessed by the jurors. A request in an improper time is like no request, as an averment at an undue time. Walsingham's case. Plowd.

JONES and WHITLOCK, JJ., concurred. Ideo judicium reversatur. Noy, 89; Bendl., 198; 1 Roll., 771; Poph., 212; antea, pp. 685, 689; postea, p. 767.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 N.C. 759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/good-v-lawrence-kingsbench-1793.