Simpson v. . Hiatt

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Simpson v. . Hiatt

35 N.C. 473

DecidedAugust 5, 1852

StatusPublished

This text of 35 N.C. 473 (Simpson v. . Hiatt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme 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

Simpson v. . Hiatt, 35 N.C. 473 (N.C. 1852).

Pincite

Opinion

We are not called on to put any construction upon (474) the will of Henry Cheyne. Believing, as we do, that his Honor erred in his opinion upon another point, we are constrained to say that there must be a venire de novo. Setting apart, then, the question as to the devise, this case presents the same question as to the competence of the sheriff's return upon the venditioni exponas as arose in Simpson v. Hiatt,ante, 470. The facts, so far as that question arises, are the same. In this case his Honor decided that there was no evidence of the sale by the sheriff. In this there is error. The sheriff's return upon the execution isprima facie evidence of a sale, and that the plaintiff was the purchaser. For the reasons governing our opinion, we refer to the case of Hiatt, cited above, and the cases there referred to.

PER CURIAM. Venirede novo.

(475)

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

We are not called on to put any construction upon (474) the will of Henry Cheyne. Believing, as we do, that his Honor erred in his opinion upon another point, we are constrained to say that there must be a venire de novo. Setting apart, then, the question as to the devise, this case presents the same question as to the competence of the sheriff's return upon the venditioni exponas as arose in Simpson v. Hiatt,ante, 470. The facts, so far as that question arises, are the same. In this case his Honor decided that there was no evidence of the sale by the sheriff. In this there is error. The sheriff's return upon the execution isprima facie evidence of a sale, and that the plaintiff was the purchaser. For the reasons governing our opinion, we refer to the case of Hiatt, cited above, and the cases there referred to.

PER CURIAM. Venirede novo.

(475)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 N.C. 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simpson-v-hiatt-nc-1852.