State v. . Edwards

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Edwards

32 N.C. 243

DecidedAugust 5, 1849

StatusPublished

This text of 32 N.C. 243 (State v. . Edwards) 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

State v. . Edwards, 32 N.C. 243 (N.C. 1849).

Pincite

Opinion

If the constable would be liable for a (244) false return on these facts, he must likewise be liable under the statute for want of due diligence in not taking out an execution or otherwise making the money. The Court *Page 183 holds, clearly, that he would have been liable for returning nulla bona in this case, if a fieri facias had been in his hands. The return would have been false in point of fact, as Noland had property. Then, he was not to wait for a communication from the creditor as to the person or residence of the debtor or the particular property in his possession. If he needed information on those points, it was his duty to make inquiry before he ventured on a return, false in fact. Parks v. Alexander, 29 N.C. 412;Dyke v. Duke, 4 Bing. N.C. 197. But here it is not pretended that the constable did not know the debtor and his residence, and there was evidence that he had precise notice from the mortgagee of some of the effects, that his claim was discharged and that the property then belonged to Noland, and, of course, was subject to execution. No reputation of insolvency of the debtor could excuse such indifference to the interests of the creditor and gross neglect of duty.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

(245)

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

If the constable would be liable for a (244) false return on these facts, he must likewise be liable under the statute for want of due diligence in not taking out an execution or otherwise making the money. The Court *Page 183 holds, clearly, that he would have been liable for returning nulla bona in this case, if a fieri facias had been in his hands. The return would have been false in point of fact, as Noland had property. Then, he was not to wait for a communication from the creditor as to the person or residence of the debtor or the particular property in his possession. If he needed information on those points, it was his duty to make inquiry before he ventured on a return, false in fact. Parks v. Alexander, 29 N.C. 412;Dyke v. Duke, 4 Bing. N.C. 197. But here it is not pretended that the constable did not know the debtor and his residence, and there was evidence that he had precise notice from the mortgagee of some of the effects, that his claim was discharged and that the property then belonged to Noland, and, of course, was subject to execution. No reputation of insolvency of the debtor could excuse such indifference to the interests of the creditor and gross neglect of duty.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

(245)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 N.C. 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-edwards-nc-1849.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack