Thair v. . Fosset

Court of King's Bench

Thair v. . Fosset

1 N.C. 786

DecidedJuly 5, 1793

StatusPublished

This text of 1 N.C. 786 (Thair v. . Fosset) 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

Thair v. . Fosset, 1 N.C. 786 (kingsbench 1793).

Pincite

Opinion

Error is assigned on a judgment in the court of Verge, that the plaintiff declared on a trespass at St. Martin infra jurisdictionem, and onnon culp. pleaded, there was a venire facias from St. Martin praedict. *Page 787 without saying infra jurisdictionem. And this being a court which is removed with the King's residence, it may be that St. Martin was *within its jurisdiction at the time of the contract and the declaration, and out of it when the venire facias was awarded, which is two months after. Therefore they ought to have said infra jurisdictionem, as in the declaration.

DODERIDGE and JONES, JJ., held it was error. Noy, 96.

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

Error is assigned on a judgment in the court of Verge, that the plaintiff declared on a trespass at St. Martin infra jurisdictionem, and onnon culp. pleaded, there was a venire facias from St. Martin praedict. *Page 787 without saying infra jurisdictionem. And this being a court which is removed with the King's residence, it may be that St. Martin was *within its jurisdiction at the time of the contract and the declaration, and out of it when the venire facias was awarded, which is two months after. Therefore they ought to have said infra jurisdictionem, as in the declaration.

DODERIDGE and JONES, JJ., held it was error. Noy, 96.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 N.C. 786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thair-v-fosset-kingsbench-1793.