Moore v. . Suttril
2 N.C. 16
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,
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)