{
  "id": 1961137,
  "name": "GEORGE LEDBETTER v. ISAAC ARLEDGE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ledbetter v. Arledge",
  "decision_date": "1862-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "475",
  "last_page": "476",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "8 Jones 475"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "53 N.C. 475"
    }
  ],
  "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": 227,
    "char_count": 3256,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.458,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.865114278970581e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8417975333697061
    },
    "sha256": "f8113f1ada223f5a7e06368608571de8ff48a8acf25d4dc81b361f16a55768f9",
    "simhash": "1:9e8e8080ca0d67eb",
    "word_count": 585
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:05:38.635812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "GEORGE LEDBETTER v. ISAAC ARLEDGE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Manly, J;\nThe provisions of the Code, chapter 31, section 50, requiring the return of all writs, process, &c., on the first day of the term, to which they are returnable, does not apply to executions or writs of fieri facias.\nThis is apparent from a consideration of the section in all its parts, for it is further provided therein, that process, not made returnable or executed as directed, shall be adjudged void upon the plea of the defendant. From which it seems, that it means such process only as a plea could be made to, viz: original, or mesne ; see Duncan v. Hill, 2 Dev. and Bat. 291. It is also apparent, from the provisions made, by law, for postponing sales under executions, from the first to the later days of the term ; Rev. Code, chap. 45, sec. 14, and from the general practice of the courts. \u2022\nThe sheriff is allowed all the days of the term to return a fieri facias, unless he be ruled, upon motion, and cause shown, to return it on some intermediate day. When the return is made, like other acts of the Court, it stands, by relation, as if done on the first day.\nIt follows that when a sheriff made due return on Thursday of his execution, it was not only in the power, but it was the duty of the Court to strike out the conditional judgment, as soon as the fact of the return was brought to its notice.\nThe proceedings of a court are all in paper, until* its close, and are subject, in the mean while, to be reviewed, amended or revoked, as may seem to the Court\u2019s maturer judgment right and proper.\nThe action of the County Court was strictly in accordance with law, and consequently, the pro forma judgment of the superior court erroneous, wherefore, the latter should be reversed, and judgment be for the defendant.\nPer Curiam,\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Manly, J; Per Curiam,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel appeared for the plaintiff in this Court.",
      "Phillips, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GEORGE LEDBETTER v. ISAAC ARLEDGE.\nThe provisions of the Revised Code, chap. 31, sec. 50, requiring the return of all writs, process, &e., to be made on the first day of the term, to which they are returnable, does not apply to executions or writs of fieri facias.\nMotion for a judgment ni. si. against the defendant, as sheriff of Henderson, heard before Dick, J., at Spring Term,\u00bb 1861. This ease was submitted to his Honor on a\nCASE AGREED.\nAn^exeoution issuing from the County Court of Henderson, in favor of George Ledbetter against one William Eeese, more than twenty days before the term of the Court, was placed in the hands of the defendant, who failed to return the same on the Monday of the term. On Thursday of the term, to which the execution, was returnable, the plaintiff asked for and obtained a judgment ni. si. against the defendant, who immediately thereafter paid the amount, called for in the execution, to the plaintiff\u2019s attorney, and asked for and obtained leave of the Court to make his return. On the next day (Friday) the defendant asked leave of the Court to strike out the order granting a judgment against him, which was gran ted,.and the judgment ni. si. was ordered to be stricken out, from which the plaintiff prayed and obtained an appeal to the Superior Court.\nIn the Superior Court a pro forma judgment was given for plaintiff, and defendant appealed to this Court.\nNo counsel appeared for the plaintiff in this Court.\nPhillips, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0475-01",
  "first_page_order": 483,
  "last_page_order": 484
}