Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

111 N.C. 291

16 S.E 174

Turner v. . Page

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 5, 1892

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1892-09-05

AmjejrCKMent proceeding against defendant, the Sheriff of Wake County, for failure to return an execution in favor of plaintiff, tried before Whitaker, /., at March Term, 1892, of OraNGE Superior Court. The facts found are as follows: On August 19, 1891, M. W. Page, Sheriff of Wake County, received an execution from the Superior Court of Orange Count}'- in favor of the plaintiff against defendant, returnable to the next term of said Court, which began November 2,1891.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 1966

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-09-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

MacRae, J.:

¶1 The term of the Court to which the Sheriff was bound to return the execution adjourned sine die on the afternoon of Thursday, November 5, 1891. The Sheriff mailed the execution with his return endorsed thereon at Raleigh on the morning of the said 5th day of November. It was taken out of the post-office at Hillsboro by the Clerk of Orange Superior Court on the day after the adjournment of the term.

¶2 Executions shall be returnable to the term of the Court next after that from which they bear teste. The Code, § 449. The Sheriff is allowed all the days of the term to return an execution, unless he be ruled, upon motion and cause shown, to return it on some intermediate day. Person v. Newsom, 87 N. C., 142. While the term may last for the full time given it by law, it may be adjourned at an earlier day. Branch v. Walker, 92 N. C., 87; Foley v. Black, Ibid, 476. It *293 seems that this execution was received by defendant on the 19th of August, that the plaintiff was restrained by order of the Judge from proceeding under it, and that at any time after such restraining order was served upon plaintiff the execution might have been returned, but that it was delayed until too late to reach the Court before its’ adjournment. Section 2079 of The Code imposes the penalty for neglect to make due return, unless such Sheriff can show sufficient cause to the Court at the next succeeding term after the order.

¶3 It is true that, as appears by the answer of defendant, an alias execution afterwards came into his hands and he collected the money thereon and the plaintiff has received the same. We are precluded from giving relief on account of the hardship of the case. The letter and spirit of the law are plain, and the statute is older than the State. Its purpose is to secure promptness and efficiency on the part of its officers. A failure to execute it from motives of sympathy would lead to looseness in administration and impair the strength and dignity of the law. No sufficient excuse was offered for the failure to return the execution and it was error to discharge the rule.

¶4 Judgment Reversed.

/111/nc/291 · .json · Public domain