Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

65 N.C. 211

Swain v. . Smith

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 5, 1871

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1871-01-05

This was a writ of recorda/ri in the nature of a writ of false judgment, to reverse a judgment given by a Justice of the Peace, and upon the return of the writ in which the whole proceedings were certified, the plaintiff, who was also the plaintiff in the suit before the Justice, assigned for error that the judgment given by the Justice in his favor for the amount claimed by him had the following words added as a part of it — “ to be paid in old North Carolina bank money at…

Relies on Marsh v. . Williams and Brinkley · Mitchell v. . Henderson and Another

Cited in Cyclopedic (1922)’s definition of “Recordari”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1871-01-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently August 1999

4 state decisions

201871188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 →

Dick, J.

¶1 The judgment of the Justice of the Peace was erroneous. He had no right to adjudge that the plaintiff’s debt was “ to be paid in old North Carolina bank money at par, of any bank of the State.”

¶2 These words cannot be rejected as surplusage as they form a material part of the judgment. The original cause of action was merged in the judgment, and the terms of the contract so changed as to affect injuriously the rights of the plaintiff. A judgment is the conclusion of law from the facts proved or admitted in the suit, and in money demands must be absolute and in a specified amount. The plaintiff was entitled to such a judgment, and the law determines how it shall be satisfied. Mitchell v. Henderson, 63 N. C. 643.

¶3 The plaintiff has chosen the proper remedy as the writ of recordari is still in force in this State. Marsh v. Williams, 63 N. C. 371.

¶4 The writ of recordari is often used as a writ of false judgment,'and lies where an erroneous judgment is given in a Court not of record. Upon the return of the writ when the whole proceedings ;are certified, the plaintiff must assign his errors. When the parties are hr Court the subsequent proceedings are the same as upon writs of error. 2 Tidd. 1188.

¶5 The nature of the judgment in writs of error is well expressed in Parker v. Harris, 1 Salkeld 262, and is fully sustained in 2 Saund. R., 101 W. 2 Tidd. 1179. "Where judgment, is given for-the plaintiff and the defendant brings error,- there-shall only be judgment to reverse the former judgment, for the suit is only to be eased and discharged of that *213 judgment. But where the plaintiff brings error the judgment shall not only be a reversal, but tlie Court shall also ■give such judgment as the Court below should have given; for his writ of error is to revive the first cause of action, and to recover what he ought to have recovered by the first suit, wherein the erroneous judgment was given.”

¶6 These rules decide the case before us and the judgment -must be reversed, and an absolute judgment entered in this -Court for the amount ascertained to be due by the Justice •of the Peace, with interest.

¶7 The motion to dismiss was properly disallowed. The mo-lion to place the case on the trial docket was improvidently .granted. Each party must pay his own costs in this Court.

¶8 Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.

/65/nc/211 · .json · Public domain