Moore v. . Suttril

Superior Court of North Carolina

Moore v. . Suttril

2 N.C. 16

DecidedApril 5, 1792

StatusPublished

This text of 2 N.C. 16 (Moore v. . Suttril) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 N.C. 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-suttril-ncsuperct-1792.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack