Hern v. Slubbers

1 N.C. 208

This text of 1 N.C. 208 (Hern v. Slubbers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hern v. Slubbers, 1 N.C. 208 (circtnc 1793).

Opinion

Doderidge, J.

I am not satisfied as to this exception. The seizure is a request. But here the request ought to precede the suit, and is part of the contract.

Jones, J.

The difference between an action upon the case, and this, is that here the action is a sufficient request; and this is no prejudice to the defendant, for he may come on the first day and excuse himself, and he shall not be damnified. This distinction has been taken in this court, between an action of debt and an action on the case.

Doderidge, J. The request is no part of the debt; but here it is part of the contract.

So the opinion of the court was against Stone, in all points. Sed adjournatur. Godb. 483.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 N.C. 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hern-v-slubbers-circtnc-1793.