{
  "id": 2086703,
  "name": "EDMOND WHITE vs. JOHN STANTON AND WIFE",
  "name_abbreviation": "White v. Stanton",
  "decision_date": "1855-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "41",
  "last_page": "42",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Jones 41"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "48 N.C. 41"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 206,
    "char_count": 3037,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.423,
    "sha256": "a8150e8cfff71ae79f610a9feb2e6bbbbd92330cf25ecff7d5e1b5c3208b4ae7",
    "simhash": "1:c69aa761e0ec6187",
    "word_count": 519
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:13.305795+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "EDMOND WHITE vs. JOHN STANTON AND WIFE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Rattle, J.'\nTbe judgment of tbe Superior Court is sustained fully by tbe recent cases of Green v. Cole, 13 Ire. Rep. 425. Campbell v. Barnhill, 1 Jones\u2019 Bep. 551, and Pendleton v. Pendleton, 2 Jones\u2019 Rep. 135, where the subject is sufficiently discussed and explained. It only remains for us to say, therefore, that tbe judgment is affirmed.\nPer Curiam.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Rattle, J.' Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jordmi and Smith, for plaintiff.",
      "Sines, for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "EDMOND WHITE vs. JOHN STANTON AND WIFE.\nThe jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, in relation to amendments in the Courts below, is confined to the question of power. Where the Court below has the power to make an amendment, this Court cannot inquire how it has exercised that power. This Court will not interfere with, or question, the right of a County Court to amend a sci. fa. against heirs-at-law, to subject land to the satisfaction of a judgment against the Administrator, so as to recite the judgment and execution more fully. Oreen v. Cole, 13 Ire. Rep. 425. Campbell v. Barnhill, 1 Jones\u2019 Rep. 557, and Pendleton v. Pendleton, 2 Jones\u2019 Rep. 136, (cited and approved.)\nAppeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Perquimons County, affirming an order of the County Court of that county, allowing an amendment of a scire facias issued from a former term, Saunders J., presiding.\nThe amendment proposed to be made, was of a scire facias to the heir-at-law of one Chalkley Evans, to show cause why a certain judgment in favor of one Nathan Elliott\u2019s administrator, against the executor of Chalkley Evans, should not be satisfied out of the lands descended, and why the execution should not go against the same. The land of the heirs had been sold under a judgment upon this sci. fa., and the plaintiff was the purchaser. The sci. fa. was correct, except that the cause was set forth as follows : \u201c then and there to show cause, if any, why Nathan Elliott\u2019s administrator shan\u2019t have his judgment in a certain matter of controversy in said court depending, and then and there to be tried, wherein\u2014-rendered to him against the lands of the deceased, in the hands of said heir for $8.6Tj\u00a1- besides interest and cost.\u201d\nThe amendment proposed to be made is, to substitute as followsthen and there to show cause, if any, why Nathan Elliott\u2019s administrator shall not have execution against the lands and tenements of the said Chalkley Evans, in the hands of the said Margaret Evans, on a certain judgment heretofore to wit, at August Term last of said court, recovered by the said Nathan Elliott\u2019s administrator against the said Chalkley Evans\u2019 executor for $8.67-\u00a3 his debt, $2.56 his damages and interest on said debt, &c., of wbicb he is convict as appears to us of record.\u201d\nTbe amendment was allowed in tbe County Court, and thereupon William Stanton and bis wife Margaret, (tbe above-mentioned Margaret Evans,) prayed an appeal to tbe Superior Court, wbicb was allowed, and in that court tbe judgment of tbe County Court was affirmed, whereupon tbe said William Stanton and wife appealed to this court.\nJordmi and Smith, for plaintiff.\nSines, for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0041-01",
  "first_page_order": 49,
  "last_page_order": 50
}