Trelawny v. . Reynel

Court of King's Bench

Trelawny v. . Reynel

1 N.C. 712

DecidedJuly 5, 1793

StatusPublished

This text of 1 N.C. 712 (Trelawny v. . Reynel) 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

Trelawny v. . Reynel, 1 N.C. 712 (kingsbench 1793).

Pincite

Opinion

In the Common Bench, if the original be bad, it is amendable by statute. But I doubt how this can be taken to be the same writ; and if it is not, then it is no writ at all. But in this court, there can be no doubt, for now it is certified and it appears to be the same writ; and therefore it is not amendable.

DODERIDGE, J., concurred.

Nevertheless a day was given over. Postea, pp. 795, 803.

Rolls cited Pollard's and Blyth's case to Jac., supporting Justice JONES' opinion. CREW, C. J., and WHITLOCK, J., absent. 2 Cr., 479, 674; Palm., 428.

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

In the Common Bench, if the original be bad, it is amendable by statute. But I doubt how this can be taken to be the same writ; and if it is not, then it is no writ at all. But in this court, there can be no doubt, for now it is certified and it appears to be the same writ; and therefore it is not amendable.

DODERIDGE, J., concurred.

Nevertheless a day was given over. Postea, pp. 795, 803.

Rolls cited Pollard's and Blyth's case to Jac., supporting Justice JONES' opinion. CREW, C. J., and WHITLOCK, J., absent. 2 Cr., 479, 674; Palm., 428.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 N.C. 712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trelawny-v-reynel-kingsbench-1793.