Case Name: W. R. S. BURBANK v. L. L. WILLIAMS
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1866-06
Citations: 1 Phil. 37
Docket Number: 
Parties: W. R. S. BURBANK v. L. L. WILLIAMS.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 37–38

Head Matter:
W. R. S. BURBANK v. L. L. WILLIAMS.
A question having been made in the Superior Court as to the constitutionality of an act which gave defendants further time to plead; KM, that, inasmuch as the statute had been repealed before judgment was pronounced in this court, (especially, as the appeal had already given the defendant all the delay that he asked,) the court would not entertain the question merely for the purpose of settling the incidental question of costs.
Debs, upon a promissory note, returned to Rowan Superior Court, at Fall Term, 1864. At Spring Term, 1866, no pleas having been entered, the plaintiff moved for judgment according to the note. The defendant resisted this motion upon the ground that the stay law of 1866, (Acts of 1865-’6, c 16,) gave the defendant further time to plead. Mitchell, J., refused to give the judgment prayed for, and thereupon the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.
Blackmer, for the plaintiff.
Boyden and Bailey, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Pearson, O. J.
This case was brought up by the plaintiff, tor the purpose of obtaining the opinion of this court on the question as to the constitutionality of the act of the General Assembly, entitled " An act to change the jurisdiction of the courts, and the rules of pleading therein," ratified 10th March, 1866.
The statute in question is repealed by an ordinance of the Convention at its last session, upon the same subject, and there is nothing involved in the case, as it now stands, except the costs of the appeal. Under these circumstances the court does not feel itself called upon to decide on the constitutionality of tne statute, simply to dispose of a question of costs; especially as the defendant has already obtained the delay in reference to the time of pleading, which was the matter of contention.
Without entering into the question, we affirm the judgment below.
Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.