Mollineux's case

1 N.C. 172

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of North Carolina·Decided July 1, 1793·Published

Opinion

Jones, J.

Yet we will not suffer the Court of Requests to go on, though the Chancery may.

2. It appears by the bill that the plaintiff is a recusant convict, who by the statute, is an excommunicated person, and therefore cannot sue.

Doderidge, J.

The defendant has admitted the plaintiff to be able to sue.

[173] The court refused the prohibition.

Doderidge, J. The court will do justice to a recusant convict. Noy 88.

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

Jones, J.

Yet we will not suffer the Court of Requests to go on, though the Chancery may.

2. It appears by the bill that the plaintiff is a recusant convict, who by the statute, is an excommunicated person, and therefore cannot sue.

Doderidge, J.

The defendant has admitted the plaintiff to be able to sue.

[173] The court refused the prohibition.

Doderidge, J. The court will do justice to a recusant convict. Noy 88.

Mollineux's case, 1 N.C. 172 (circtnc 1793).

Pincite

1 N.C. 172 (Mollineux's case) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.