Smith v. . Amys

1 N.C. 784
CourtCourt of King's Bench
DecidedJuly 5, 1793
StatusPublished

This text of 1 N.C. 784 (Smith v. . Amys) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of King's Bench primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smith v. . Amys, 1 N.C. 784 (kingsbench 1793).

Opinion

Judgment being given in an ejectione firmae, a writ of error was sued before the writ of inquiry was awarded or returned. It seems to me it does not lie, because before the writ of inquiry the judgment is not perfect, as in Metcalf's case, 11 Co., p. 38, in account or partition. Error does not lie before final judgment. *Page 785

JONES, J., and Clerici curiae, e contra. For the judgment is quodquaerens recuperet terminum; and on this judgment the plaintiff may maintain an hab. fac. poss. If the writ of error did not lie in this stage of the suit, the plaintiff, after obtaining possession under an erroneous judgment, would never get a writ of inquiry, and the injured party would bewithout a remedy. See next case, 7 E., 3, 19, 20, 21 a, 32 l, 34 l; 22 E., 3, 6, 7.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 N.C. 784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-amys-kingsbench-1793.