Pigot v. Davis

• Decision Date: 30 June 1824
• Citation: 10 N.C. 25
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: PIGOT v. DAVIS.—From Carteret.

10 N.C. 25

PIGOT

v.DAVIS.—From Carteret.

SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

JUNE TERM, 1824

1. This Court cannot, upon a record of the Circuit Court of the United States, offered in evidence, inquire into the fact whether the judgment of the Circuit Court was regularly entered up, or whether the subsequent proceedings had thereon were regular.

2. An execution when returned becomes part of the record, and a certified copy thereof is evidence.

DETINUE, for a negro. The negro belonged to George Bell, who died in 1794, after duly making his will by which he bequeathed the negro in dispute to his infant grandchildren. The executors of the will assented to the legacy, and the negro was delivered to the guardian of the infants. A judgment was obtained by the administrator of Samuel Cornell, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of North Carolina, against the executors of George Bell, for the sum of $2,011.60. The executors in this suit pleaded plene administravit, and the plea was found for them on their showing that they had paid the legacy tothe legatees. A sci. fa. issued to the guardian of the legatees to show cause why the plaintiffs should not have judgment and execution against the legatees of the assets that came to their hand. In November, 1799, there was a judgment rendered on the sci. fa. and at the same term the plaintiff (Cornell's administrator) sued out a writ of fi. fa. on the judgment, returnable to the next term of the Circuit Court, and the marshal thereupon levied on and sold the negro in dispute to the present plaintiff. The defendant derived his title from the legatees under the will of George Bell.

There was a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court upon the legality of the execution, which issued before the expiration of twelve months from the time judgment was rendered in favor of Cornell's administrator. The court was of opinion that the execution was legal, and gave judgment accordingly; whereupon defendant appealed.

Before judgment was signed, the defendant moved for a new trial, because the original execution in favor of Cornell's administrator was not produced, but a copy, certified under seal of court by the clerk of the United States court. This was refused by the court.

HALL, J. Whether the scire facias issued regularly in this case, or whether the judgment was regularly entered up upon it, this Court cannot inquire. While it continues in force it is binding upon the parties. It can only...