TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Latham v. Hodges

Thomas Latham and D. B. Perry, vs. Francis and John Hodges

Latham v. Hodges, 35 N.C. 267 (1852)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 5, 1852
Judges
Ruffunt
Citations
35 N.C. 267
Headnotes
An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, and a final judgment there rendered. A writ of error, coram nobis, upon the ground that one of the parties died before the trial in the Supreme Court, cannot he allowed in that Court. Error for matter of fact lies only in tbo Court, in which the record and judgment are, and not to reverse (he judgment of another Court, and, especially, of a higher one.
Summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Pitt County, at the Fall Term, 1851, his Honor Judge Caldwell presiding. This is an application to the Superior Court of Pitt for a writ of error coram nobis, for error in fact on the following case: A paper writing was propounded in the County Court, as the will of Martin Woolard, by Hodges, as executor, and was contested by Ransom Woolard, and there was sentence for the will. Ransom Woolard took the cause to the Superior Court by certiorari, and gave a bond for that purpose, in which Latham and Perry, the present applicants, were his sureties. In March 1848, the issue was again found for the will, and sentence pronounced accordingly. Then judgment was rendered against Latham and Perry on their bond for the costs, and they appealed to the Supreme Court, where the judgment against them w7as affirmed, and upon execution the costs were levied. They then made the present application, upon the ground that Ransom Woolard died before the term of the Superior Court, at which the trial took place, and in September 1851 his Honor allowed the application, and the other side appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Ruffunt

Ruffunt, C. J.

The parties cannot get at their object in the present mode of .proceeding. If they could have entitled themselves to the writ of error, for the alleged error of fact, in the Superior Court, it was only while the judgment against them w7as the power of that Court. Instead of pursuing that course, however, they appealed to this Court, upon the matter of law, so that the judgment, finally rendered against them, was the judgment of this Court, and not that of the Superior Court. Hence this writ cannot *269 be sustained; as error for matter of fact lies only in the Court, in which the record and judgment are, and not to reverse the judgment of another Court, and, especially, of a higher one.

Ter Curiam. Judgment reversed, and motion disallowed

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1923: 11925: 11965: 11971: 219232026peak 1971 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Dantzic v. State182 S.E.2d 563 (N.C. 1971)
  2. Boyd v. Smyth205 N.W. 522 (Iowa 1925)
  3. State v. Merritt142 S.E.2d 687 (N.C. 1965)
  4. Partlow v. State141 N.E. 513 (Ind. 1923)
  5. Dantzic v. State178 S.E.2d 790 (N.C. Ct. App. 1971)

Most recent

  1. Dantzic v. State182 S.E.2d 563 (N.C. 1971)
  2. Dantzic v. State178 S.E.2d 790 (N.C. Ct. App. 1971)
  3. State v. Merritt142 S.E.2d 687 (N.C. 1965)
  4. Boyd v. Smyth205 N.W. 522 (Iowa 1925)
  5. Partlow v. State141 N.E. 513 (Ind. 1923)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list