The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1898-12-07

ment in this court. 10 be entered nunc
pro tune. in the case of James vs.. The
Western North Carolina Railroad Com.
pany
However much this court might be dis
posed 10 protect it's judgments ana any
legal proceedings issuing thereon. from
unlawful interfere nee by other courts, OBJ
structing the same, it cannot do SO in
this case. even should the interference
and other obstruction be unlawful.
The Judgment which the movers al
legged has been unawfully intcrfercd
with, and its enforcement to have been
INSTRUCTED. is not Il Judgment Of this
court, hut the Judgment of the Superior
court of Rowan county. This is dis
tinctly alleged in the 1Ith paragraph Of
plaintiffs complaint, in the action of
:. I. Pearson and Clemyc James VS..
The Western North Carolina Railroad
Company. 1t is there alleged that she
recovered Judgment in the Superior cour,
of Rowan county against the defendant
The Western North Carolina Railroad
Company. which hears date the DIST Of
February. 1898
The case Of James vs.. Railroad was
heard on appeal ut September term.
of the court below was reversed. Upon
the opinion in that appeal being filed,
Judgment was entered here against the
defendant company for costs. and that
the opinion be certified To the court be-
low to the end that the court below
might proceed to Judgment This was
done and that court proceeded to jude-
ment at February term, 1898. as we
have seen. This court has no power TO
change. alter or modify its judgments
rendered at a former term of the court.
Moore VS.. Hinant 30 y. G. 163. Cook
VS.. Moore. 100 \. c. 294; Murphy VS..
Merritt. 63 y. C.. 502. An exception
To the rule is where the judgment has
been enormously rendered by mistake
or by inadvertancc. In such cases it
may be altered SO as to make it speak
the truth--to make it III fact the judg-
ment of this court. Moore W.. Hinant
and Cook vs.. Moore. supra.(
This court is strictly an appellate
court with the exception as to claims
against the State 1t only acquired
jurisdiction in the case of James VS.. The
Western North Carolina Railroad Com
pany by reason of the plaintiffs appeal.
The purpose of this appeal was to have
the rulings of the court below reviewed
UPON questions of law, presented by the
record of the trial below; and when
this was decided and certified to the
court below fer Judgment there, the
purposes for which the appeal was taken
was ended. and this court had no further
jurisdiction of the case. The legal link
or string that brought the case to this
court was cut. and it went back home
to the Superior court Of Rowan, and
that court proceeded with the case upon
its original jurisdiction, instructed by
this court rs to the law involved in the
appeal.
We cannot adopt the suggestion of coun-
sci made during the argument, to enter
Judgment in the James ease nunc pro
tune for the reason that we have here
tofore, ut September term. 1897, entered
Il judgment. And we haze no power
to enter another judgment in the case
Moore VS.. Hinnant supra.)
1t was contended by counsel for James
that this court had Il supervisory power
over the Superior courts. and could com
pei them, by mandamus and by other
writs, to observe and obey the juag
ments and orders of this court. This
is true. but no action or order of The
Superior court has been called to onr
attention, of which Mrs. james can OF
does complain.
In the course of the argument the com
plaint in the case of Pearson and james
was called to our attention and discuss
ed by counsel as also was the complaint
in the case Of the Central Trust Com.
pany. filed in the Circuit court of the
United States: and the opinion of that
court and the orders made therein were
also called to our attention and discuss
cd by counsel But none of these mat
ters are before us in such a way rs to
authorize as TO discuss them, and we do
not We have no more right to review
the opinion of the Circuit court than
it has to review the opinion of this
court. and we do not. While we see no
reason for changing our opinion n
James VS. Western North Carolina Rail-
raod Company that matter is not now
before us for our consideration.
The rule to show cause must be dis
charged at the cost of the plaintiffs
in said rule. Rule discharged.
In the case Of Montague VS.. Hooker,
decided yesterday, the Supreme court
went back to original principles and
passed upon an interesting question.
1t was as to whether the rule in
Shelley's case applies to personal pro-
perty and if SO whether it be a rule of
property or rule of construction. The
court decided the rule does not apply, for
the following reasons:
l. 1t was an eXecutory trust.
>. Technical rules ought to be strictly
construed and not extended TO the dis
position of property SO as to defeat the
intention of the testatriX.
Opinions were handed down yesterday
as follows:
Tucker VS. Satterthwaite, affirmed.
Hooker VS.. Montague, from WAKE,
reversed.
Commissioners VS.. Payne, from Bun
| combe, affirmed.
Heaton VS.. Wilson, from Mitchell,
new trial.
Wiseman VS.. Green, from Mitchell.
new trial.
Investment Company VS.. Kelly, from
Mcdowell, no error.
Graham VS.. Sturgill from Ashe, no
error.
Brown VS.. Miensset, from Mcdowell