¶1 This is an issue to be determined by the Court, and that the writ and declaration was proof of the amount of the plaintiff's demand, and as the sum demanded in the writ and declaration was above the sum of £ 50, they ordered a respondeas ouster. Quere de hoc .
¶2 See McNaughton v. Hunter, post , 454; Bell v. Bell 5 N.C. 95 McGhee v. Draughon , 4 N.C. 240
Download
Copy
Embed on your site
iframe Markdown Preview card Button Hover to preview · click to copy the code
Case posture Posture DEBT. The bond was for £ 100, but reduced by payments, as the defendant alleged, to about £ 30. He pleaded to the jurisdiction of the court according to the act of 1793, ch. 19, which directs that from and after the passing of this act no suit shall be originally commenced in any of the Superior Courts in this State for any debt or demand of (123) less value then £ 100, where the plaintiff and defendant lived in the same district; or for less than £ 50, where the parties lived in different districts; and if any suit shall be commenced contrary to the true intent and meaning hereof, or if any person shall demand a greater sum than is due, on purpose to evade this act, in either case the plaintiff shall be nonsuited and pay costs; and the defendant set forth in his plea that the real and true demand of the plaintiff was of less value than £ 50, to which plea there was a replication and issue. Source: CourtListener
