70 N.C. 536 (N.C. 1874), Mayfield v. Jones
|Citation:||70 N.C. 536|
|Opinion Judge:||PEARSON, C. J.|
|Party Name:||WESLEY MAYFIELD v. ALEXANDER JONES.|
|Attorney:||Batchelor, Edwards & Batchelor, for appellant. Attorney General Hargrove, contra.|
|Judge Panel:||PER CURIAM.|
|Court:||Supreme Court of North Carolina|
When, in his complaint, the plaintiff demands unliquidated damages, there must be an enquiry to ascertain the amount thereof.
CIVI ACTION, for the recovery of the value of a mule, tried before his Honor, Judge Watts, at Fall Term, 1873, of GRANVILLE Superior Court.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendant converted to his own use, a mule belonging to him, of the value of $200. Defendant answers with a general denial.
At Fall Term, 1873, the Court required the defendant to give additional security or justify on or before the second day of the next term. This the defendant failing to do, the plaintiff moved for and obtained judgment against him for $200; from which judgment, defendant appealed.
The complaint demands $200 for the wrongful conversion of a mule. In some way or other, not apparent upon the face of the record, the defendant is made to give a bond and security " for the defence of said suit," and after many continuances, upon a rule to justify the former bond or give additional security, there is judgment that the plaintiff recover the sum of $200 and cost...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP