Case ID: charlton-rep_1/html/0109-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Jones, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Minutes of Superior Court, letter F. p. 281.
    William Wilson vs. Patrick Ray.
    ATTACHMENT IN THE INFERIOR COURT OF CHATHAM COUNTY.
    Proceedings removed into the Superior Court by cer-tiorari .
    It appears, from the proceedings in this case, that an attachment was issued on the 3d ot February, 18Ó2, and by a return of the sheriff, that he did attach some dry goods, and a negro boy, and served J. M Mounox (a garnisher) with a copy on the same day. The sheriff farther:returned, that he had caused the property to bring 640 dollars and 96 cents ; by order of the justices of the inferior court, which cash he had waiting the order of that court. And it also appears, from the statement of counsel, that, in the term of July, 1804,.in the inferior court, when the said case came on to be heard, Messrs. Davis and Berrien, of counsel for other attaching creditors, suggested to the court, that they could not proceed to give judgment, because the late sheriff', Thomas Norton, had neglected to make a return ; that a copy of the attachment had been posted at the court house, in conformity with the attachment law of the state ; and the court below being of this opinion, the attachment was accordingly about to .be dismissed, when Mr. Stites, for the plaintiff, offered an affidavit of Thomas Robertson, certifying, “ that he had seen a copy posted at the court house but the court being of opinion, that no evidence dehors the record could be received, Mr. Stiles then offered a farther return of the late sheriff, that “ he had posted a copy at the court house,” and moved the said return be admilted, and filed nunc pro tunc. But the court said it could not be received, as Mr. Norton was not then in office, and the attachment was dismissed.
   Per Jones, Judge.

Upon the first view of this case, I was inclined to believe, that the inferior court could not authorise the amendment; but the statute of jeofails, 21 Jac. 1. c. 13, and the subsequent statutes extend to all courts of record. I am, therefore, after mature consideration, of opinion, that, under all the circumstances of the case, the additional return of the late sheriff Norton, ought to be received, and that the plaintiff should be permitted to proceed.

Proceedings removed.

Stites, in support of the certiorari.

Davis and Berrien, against it.