Moore v. . Suttril

2 N.C. 16
Superior Court of North Carolina·Decided April 5, 1792·Published

Opinion

Objected by Mr. Moore, a capias ought not to have issued, but a summons; and the attachment is irregular, being founded on such a capias; and the suit is improperly brought. It ought to have been against Mrs. Umstead, also; for suppose she had died, it would have abated; if he had died, it would have abated also, as the case is circumstanced; but had it been brought against both, and he had died, it would have survived against her.

The plaintiff being not ready, was nonsuited.

Cited: Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 84.

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

Moore v. . Suttril, 2 N.C. 16 (N.C. Ct. App. 1792).

2 N.C. 16 (Moore v. . Suttril) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Leake v. . Gilchrist
13 N.C. 73 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1829)