¶1 We think whether due diligence had been used in endeavoring to collect the debt from Drum-mond, was a question of law, as it arose in this case.— We also think as the Plaintiff did not take judgment against Drummond’s bail upon the return of two writs of sci.fa. instead of issuing a third, he did not use that diligence which the case required. Let the judgment be reversed, and a new trial granted.
12 N.C. 381
Battle v. . Little
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided June 5, 1828
Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1828-06-05
From Edgecomb. COVENANT upon a deed executed by the Defendants’ intestate, whereby he had assigned severa] notes to the Plaintiff, and bound himself “ for the money due on them provided said Battle failed to get it after a due course of law.” The breach assigned was ‘Ghat Use Plaintiff had failed to get, after a due course of law, the money called for in a note made isy one John Drummond,” which was one of those assigned by the deed on which the action was brought.
Decided 1828-06-05