{
  "id": 8691245,
  "name": "LEWIS WEBB v. COMM'RS. OF THE TOWN OF BEAUFORT",
  "name_abbreviation": "Webb v. Comm'rs. of the Town of Beaufort",
  "decision_date": "1874-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "307",
  "last_page": "309",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "70 N.C. 307"
    }
  ],
  "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": 233,
    "char_count": 3331,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.357,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.640605397769736e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4049210977165078
    },
    "sha256": "33435fdc8b4c9395b7b5fdc0867486c1fc5054d15dfd5b01a76660c77c0bb6bf",
    "simhash": "1:7d5f56e240af3cd7",
    "word_count": 568
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:53:06.826178+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LEWIS WEBB v. COMM\u2019RS. OF THE TOWN OF BEAUFORT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Rbade, J.\nWhen the demand, in this case the debt, of the \u2022plaintiff is ascertained by the j udgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction, a peremtory mandamus may be asked for. Lutterloh v. Board of Commissioners of Cumberland County, 65 N. C. R., p. 403. This would probably not be controverted, but the demurrer is upon the ground, that the judgment which ascertained the plaintiff\u2019s debtis dormant. Take that to be so ; still a dormant j ndgment is evidence of indebtedness, and of the amount of indebtedness, just, as well as a judgment not dormant, and may be enforced as well, but not in the same way. The one by execution the other by action to revive. If the plaintiff\u2019s judgment were alive, he would have no remedy to enforce it by execution because the defendant has nothing which an execution can reach. And as he would have to rerort to the present remedy by mandamus, there is error in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the action.\nLet this be certified.\nPer Curiam. Judgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Rbade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hubbard, for appellant.",
      "Oreen, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LEWIS WEBB v. COMM\u2019RS. OF THE TOWN OF BEAUFORT.\nWhere a debt against a municipal corporation has been reduced to judgment in a Court of competent jurisdiction, a premptory mandamus may be properly asked for, although such judgment is dormant.\n(iMtt&i'loh v. Commissioners of Cumberlamd, 65 U. O'. Rep.. 408,. cited and approved.)\nCivil actioN, tried at the Fall Term-, 1873, of the Superior Court of CaRtebet county, before his Honor, Judge Clarice.\nPlaintiff alleges, that at February Term, 1861, of the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of Carteret county, he recovered! against the defendants a judgment for $300 principal money,, and $33,90 interest and costs; that an execution thereon issued, under which, from the sale of the Market House and certain lots in the town of Beaufort, there was raised $12, which was applied to the payment of the original and subsequently accrued costs in the suit; that the defendants owned no other property out of which the judgment could be collected. That no part of the principal and interest of said judgment has been paid, whereupon the plaintiff demands judgment, that apreremptory writ of mandamus be issued, commanding the \u201cCommissioners of the town of Beaufort\u201d to pay or cause to be paid to the plaintiff\u2019 or his Attorney, the sum of $333,90.\nDefendants demurred to this complaint, on the ground, that the judgment of the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions in favor of the plaintiff, and against the defendants, set forth in the pleadings, was and had been, for many years dormant.\nHis Honor gave judgment in favor of defendant, and dismissed the complaint, and the plaintiff appealed.\nHubbard, for appellant.\nThe rights of the plaintiff were ascertained and determined by the County Court of Carteret, and the Court may grant a peremptory writ of mandamus in the first instance.\nThe dormancy of the judgment of the County Court, it is insisted, does not alter the character of plaintiff\u2019s claim. It is equally ascertained and certain when the judgment is dormant as when it is not.\nThe dormancy of a judgment does not at all affect its dignity in the administration of assets. State v. Johnson, 1 Iredell, 231, and in anology to this principle it is submitted that the dormancy of the judgment in this case does not defer the certainty of plaintiff\u2019s claim.\nOreen, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0307-01",
  "first_page_order": 323,
  "last_page_order": 325
}