Bond v. . Wool

Decided September 5, 1893

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1893-09-05

This was a motion to assess damages on an injunction bond, heard at the Spring Term, 1893, of the Superior Court of Chowan County. The following are the facts in the case: At Spring Term, 1890, of the Superior Court of Chowan County, there was a judgment dissolving the injunction. From this judgment there was an appeal by the plaintiff to the Supreme Court. Judgment was affirmed in the Supreme Court.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1893-09-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1986

2 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Claric, J.:

¶1 While it is more regular and, for many reasons, the better course, that judgments should always be signed by the Judge, it has been repeatedly held that this is not mandatory. Matthews v. Joyce, 85 N. C., 258; Rollins v. Henry, 78 N. C., 342; Keener v. Goodson, 89 N. C., 273; Spencer v. Credle, 102 N. C., 63. The entry on the docket, “Judgment as per transcript filed from the Supreme Court,” was sufficient and a termination of the action. Besides, under the provisions of chapter 192, Acts 1887, the former judgment of the Superior Court was not vacated by the appeal — merely suspended — and the suspension was ended by the affirmation of the judgment by the Supreme Court.

¶2 The subsequent judgment in the Superior Court added no validity to the former judgment df that Court, nor to the judgment in the Supreme Court. Its office was simply formal, to direct the execution to proceed and to carry the costs subsequently accrued. No Error.