{
  "id": 8685658,
  "name": "Superior Court Office v. David Lockman",
  "name_abbreviation": "Superior Court Office v. Lockman",
  "decision_date": "1827-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "146",
  "last_page": "147",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Dev. 146"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "12 N.C. 146"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "1 Hay. 20",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hayw.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 169,
    "char_count": 1730,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.336,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.400303674957654e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9443510027032465
    },
    "sha256": "aa3dde73ec7d0de78bf5694439462d9783c2180adfe2e9f5e54bda9975b87ca6",
    "simhash": "1:c9eabd36961bc5fc",
    "word_count": 307
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:44:07.907129+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Superior Court Office v. David Lockman,"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ham, Judge.\nStrictly speaking, the party is at all f\u00a1mes answerable for bis own costs ; but under the act 3 of 1777. Rev. c. 115, s.'90, the successful party being authorised to recover them from the party cast, the practice has been to wait (he event (if the suit, and then to issue execution against, the party cast for costs ; before which time, the officers do not claim to be paid'their costs. But when the Plaintiff\u2019s costs cannot be recovered of the Defendant, there is no reason why the Plaintiff should not pay them. And so it was held, in Merrit v. Merrit, and Brehon v. Tatom\u2019s adm\u2019r. (1 Hay. 20). I therefore think, that in this case, the motion ought to have been allowed in the Superior Court.\nPer Curiam, Judgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ham, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wilson, who appeared in this Court in support of the motion,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JULY TERM, 1827.\nSuperior Court Office v. David Lockman,\nFrom Lincoln.\nA. party is at all times answerable for his own costs, and though he succeed in the cause, execution may issue against him therefor, if the same cannot be made out of the party cast.\nLockman recovered judgment, in the Court below against one Mien, and the Sheriff retinoid \u201c NuMa bo-na\u201d to a fieri facias issuing thereon, and the lees due the officers of the Court for services rendered at the instance of Lockman, the Plaintiff, remaining unpaid, a notice was served on iiitn to shew cause why execution should not issue against him for 1 he amount of those fees.\nA motion being made below for execution, according to the notice, his Honor Judge Sthasge, who presided, refused the motion and dismissed the proceedings J upon, which, the case was brought here by appeal.\nWilson, who appeared in this Court in support of the motion,\ncited Revisal, c. ISZ \u2014 Merrits v. Merrits (l Sap 20) and Officers v. Taylor (ante 99.^"
  },
  "file_name": "0146-01",
  "first_page_order": 155,
  "last_page_order": 156
}