{
  "id": 8698356,
  "name": "THOMAS H. BREM and JOHN S. MEANS v. THOMAS JAMIESON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brem v. Jamieson",
  "decision_date": "1874-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "566",
  "last_page": "570",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "70 N.C. 566"
    }
  ],
  "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": 494,
    "char_count": 9267,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.4,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.0722432192350205e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3199659516828973
    },
    "sha256": "ab02bf6f576d50a2fac38bf88d6738639f9c020ca92d41a630059f78b962c0fb",
    "simhash": "1:e614303812ca71cb",
    "word_count": 1634
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:53:06.826178+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THOMAS H. BREM and JOHN S. MEANS v. THOMAS JAMIESON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Settle, J.\nIt was incumbent on the plaintiffs to maintain that the lien on the lands of William Means, acquired by tho judgment, in 1861, had been preserved by regular and successive executions, until the sale of the land in 1871. This he lias failed to do. There are two links wanting in the plaintiff\u2019s chain of title, the absence of which renders it worthless:\n1st. The gap in the executions from Spring Term, 1867, until the Special Term in December, of the same year:\n2d. The name of William Means was omitted from the execution which issued from Spring Term, 1868, returnable to Fall Term, 1868.\nThe ordinance of the Convention of June 23, 1866, provided for the transfer of all actions of debt, covenant, assump-sumpsit and account, from the County Courts to the Spring Terms, 1867, of the Superior Courts, and declared that \u201c at the Spring Terms aforesaid, the Court shall, on motion, order the said judgments to be entered on the minute dockets, provided the same were not dormant when transmitted from the County Courts ; and on such entries being made, the said judgments shall be taken and held to be judgments of the Superior Courts, and writs of fieri facias and venditioni ex-ponas may issue, as provided in section ten o\u00ed this ordinance, following the writs transmitted from the county courts, and preserving the liens, as if issued by the same Court. Section 10 provides that no writs of fi. fa. or ven. ex. on j udgments in debt, &c., shall issue from Spring Term, 1867, without permission of the Court.\nThe learned counsel for the plaintiffs attempted to bridge over the first chasm, by showing that in obedience to the ordinance, the plaintiffs had caused a transcript of the case to be returned to the Spring Term, 1867, of the Superior Court for Mecklenburg county, with all the fi. fas. that had been issued ou the judgment since 1871, and that they had pursued the regular course prescribed by law from 1861 to Spring Term, 1867 ; and he says, that inasmuch as the docket, was crowded at Spring Term, 1867, by the transfer of business from the county to the Superior Court, he could not get the ear of the Court to move that his judgment be entered on'the minute docket, and that he have execution thereon, as prescribed by the ordinance; and he insists, that as he made the motion as soon as be could got the ear of the Court, he ought not to be prejudiced by the delay.\nIt is true that the act of the law shall prejudice no one.. But it does not appear that the plaintiffs endeavored to get the ear of the Court. Such motions were generally allowed as a matter of course, and the plaintiffs should have alleged and shown that they endeavored to take action at Spring Term, 1867, in order to place them under the maxim, mgila?itibus non dorm-ientibus jura subveniunt.\nAlthough they appear to have been vigilant from 1861 to 1867, yet we need not cite authority to show that the gap in the executions from Spring Term, 1867, until the Special Term in December, of the same year, destroyed the lien theretofore existing.\nIf, however, we were to 3rield to the forcible argument of the plaintiff's counsel, and pass by this objection, we would be immediately confronted by the insuperable defect in the execution which issued from Spring Term, 1868, returnable to Fall Term, 1868.\nThere were three defendants in the judgment, to-wit: J. C. Abernathy, R. F. Blythe and William Means, and all the executions had gone against them all, until Spring Term, 1868, when the execution was issued against Abernathy alone, omitting the name of Blythe and also the name of Means, the owner of the laud in controversy. This defect was also sufficient to destroy the lien on the land of Means, and to break the chain by which the plaintiffs claim title.\nThe Judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.\nPjsb CueiaM. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Settle, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gui\u00f3n, for appellants.",
      "Vance and Burwell and M&Oorhle <& Bailey, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THOMAS H. BREM and JOHN S. MEANS v. THOMAS JAMIESON.\nWhere an execution, issued from the Courty Court in 1801, and regularly thereafter until the Spring Term, 1807, of the Superior Court, to which Court it was transferred under the brdinance of the 23d of June, 1800, but no motion made at said Spring Term. 1807, to docket it in tlie Superior Court, and the same was not re-issued until \u2018December (Special) Term, 1867, such execution lost its lien on the land levied upon, and a sale of the land by virtue thereof, conveyed no title.\nWhore the name of one or more of the defendants is omitted in an aliaa even'ion, regularly issued before that time and levied on the land of such defendant, the omission is fatal, and a sale of the land under such execution is invalid.\nC vtl vTfON, for the recovery of the possession of land, trie' before Moore, J., at a Special (July) Term, 1873, of the Sup\"1 \u00a1<>r Court of MECKLENBURG.\nO.i \u2019In* t> ial below, the jury found tlie following facts:\nAi a Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of Mecklenburg \u00bfoui u, lie:<l in April, 1861, the plaintiff recovered a judg-iner . in an action of debt, against J. O. Ahcrnntliy, R. F. Bly lie .o.<1 Wm. Means, for $291,15, of which $250 was principal mon\nEx.\u25a0culi \u2022 s thereon were regularly issued and rc urned from tern, to v m, until the County Court held for sm\u00faJ county, on the-!rh Monday of October, 1866. The lai-t County Court, held on tin 4th Monday of October, 1866, execution issued from f >i-t<.1) r Term. 1865, returnable to October Term, 1866. On h 1 \u00ed\u2019>i \u2022 day of November, 1866, at the request of the plai A \u2019anscript of the case was returned to the Superior Cor . iv; I all the executions issued from i-aid County Court, and o o -vas issued to,and served upon \u00a1lie :h :> \u00a1 dant, J. C. Abu'o.u . in said execution, as follows:\n\u201cState of Ngeth CaeoliNA,\nTo the Sheriff of MeeMenbnrg Comity :\nYon are hereby commanded to make known to J. C. Abernathy, R. F. Blythe and Win. Means, that agreeably to an order \u2022of the State Convention, I have transmitted to the Superior Court, a judgment obtained in the County Court, against them in favor of Thomas H. Brem.\nWitness, Win. Howell, Clerk of our 6a'id Court, at office, the 2d Monday in January, 1867- Issued 8th February, 1867.\u201d\nThis was returned to the Superior-Court,-endorsed \u201c executed March 29th, 1867.\u201d\nAt Spring Term, 1867, of the Superior Court-, the case -is stated on the trial docket as No. 355; at Fall Term, as No, 299, and marked continued. At the Special 'Term of said Court in December, it is stated as No. 29-9, and the following entry appears: \u201cJudgment -of the County -Court confirmed .as of this Term.\u201d From -this Term an execution from the \u00a1Superior Court issued on the29th day of January, 1868, tested the 2d Monday in December, 1867, stating-that judgment was rendered December 9th, 1897, which was returned not collected. Another^?, fa., issued from said Court, the 11th June, 1868, -tested as of the 9th Monday after the 4th Monday in February, 1868, returnable to Fall Term, 1868. In said last execution, only the name of J, C. Abernathy is inserted, the names of the \u2022other defendants, Blythe and Means, being omitted. Another .fi.fa., issued after the Fall Term, on the 12th day of January, 1869, against all the defendants, returnable to the next Superior Court. On this, the sheriff -endorsed a le-vy on the lands, the subject of this controvers3r, .as the property of the defendant, Means, said endorsement dated January 17th, 1869, and the same was returned to Spring Term, 1869.\nOn the 25th of June, 1869, a ven. ex., iss.ued to sell the lands levied on, and the same was returned not collected. A\u00a1t Fall Term, 1869, another ven. ex., issued returnable to -Spring Term, 187CL This was not collected, as was a similar one issued to the Fall Term. At this term another ven. ex. issued, under which the sheriff sold the land levied on, and the plain-tiifs, Thomas II. Brem and John S. Means, purchased it.\nThe jury also find that the sheriff executed- a deed to the plaintiffs, in fee for the land. That Win. Means conveyed the same to W. F. Davidson,, on the 22d January, 1867, putting him in possession ; and that Davidson conveyed said lands to Smith and McCormick, who placed the defendant, Jamieson in-possession, who is n.ow holding the same adversely to the plaintiffs.\nThe jury also find that the rents and profits of the land, from the date of the plaintiffs\u2019 deed to the time of the trial, is $125. But whether or not, upon the whole matter aforesaid, the- defendant, Jamieson isguilty of unlawfully withholding the possession of the premises from the plaintiffs, the jurors aro wholly ignorant, and therefore pray the advice of the Court. And if upon the whole matter aforesaid, it shall seem to the Court that the defendant, Jamieson is guilty of unlawfully withholding the possession of the said premises from the plaintiffs, then the jury so find him, and assess the plaintiffs\u2019 damages at $125. But if 'Upon the whole matter, it shall seem to the Court that the said Jamieson is not guilty of unlawful withholding the possession of said premises, then, the jury find him not guilty.\nThe Court being of opinion, with the defendant, gave judgment that he go without day, and that lie recover his costs against the plaintiff.\nFrom this judgment, the plaintiffs appealed.\nGui\u00f3n, for appellants.\nVance and Burwell and M&Oorhle <& Bailey, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0566-01",
  "first_page_order": 582,
  "last_page_order": 586
}