Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 N.C. 57

Crouch v. Hain

Decided July 1, 1793

Ejectione Armæ. The plaintiff had judgment in the Common Bench, and the defendant brought error in the King's Bench, where it was affirmed. Error was brought in Parliament, and the Chief Justice, as the practice is, carried the record there. Now, by the death of King James, the Parliament was dissolved, and the plaintiff prayed execution. The writ of error is abated by the act of God, and not that of the party.

Decided 1793-07-01

Jones, J.

¶1- If he gets a new writ of error, there may be a doubt whether we ought to award execution. A distinction is taken in the books, when the writ abates by the act or fault of the party: there the second writ shall not be a supersedeas. Otherwise when it abates by the act *of God, or without any act or fault of the party, as want of form. But here there is no writ depending, and there is no reason to stay execution.

Doderidge, J. and Crew, C. J.

¶2assented. Although we do award execution, he may bring error to the next Parliament. Here is no writ depending. We are not to know whether he wishes for a new writ or not. Therefore, Fiat executio.

¶3Doderidge, J. cited 8 H. 6. tit. error. Error brought in Parliament. The plaintiff prayed a scire facias to next Parliament, and denied that it works any delay. It is so in this case. Postea 149. Noy 76. Rol. 765. Jones 66. 2 Cr. 241. Mo. 834.

/1/nc/57 · .json · Public domain