Case Name: M. J. OVERTON v. WILLIAM R. ABBOTT
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1867-06
Citations: 1 Phil. 293
Docket Number: 
Parties: M. J. OVERTON v. WILLIAM R. ABBOTT.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 293–294

Head Matter:
M. J. OVERTON v. WILLIAM R. ABBOTT.
Where a scire facias to enforce the levy of an execution had been dismissed in the County Court, held, that it was proper for the Superior Court, upon reversing that order, to award a procedendo.
(Mardre v. Felton, ante, p. 279, Riddick v. Hinton, ante, p. 291, and Morehead v. R. R. Co., 7 Jon., 500, cited and approved.)
Scire Facias, tried before Warren, J., at Fall Term, 1866, of the Superior Court of Camden.
The case here came up by appeal from the County Court. The plaintiff had obtained a judgment (for $992) against the defendant at September Term, 1861, of the County Court, and afi.fa. issuing from that term had been levied upon land and returned to September Term, 1862.-' Afterwards a writ of sd. fa. was issued, returnable to June Term, 1866, requiring the defendant to show cause why the plaintiff should not have his execution, &c. At September Term, 1866, upon motion, this writ was dismissed.
Upon appeal to the Superior Court, his Honor overruled the motion to dismiss, and ordered a procedendo to issue to the County Court, &c. Whereupon the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Bragg, for the appellant.
The order for a procedendo to the County Court was erro-, neous, for the lohole case had been brought up into the Superior Court. Skoffner v. Fogleman, Bus., 280; Evans v. Governor’s Greek Go., 5 Jon., 331; Morehead v. Atlantic da N. G. R. R., 7 Jon., 500; Purvis v. Robinson, 4 Jon., 96.
No counsel for the appellee.

Opinion:
Pearson, C. J.
The merits of the case being disposed of in Mardre v. Felton, at this term, and (treating this as a motion, after notice, for an order to sell the land levied on,) also in Riddick v. Hinton, at this term, Mr. Bragg insists there is error in awarding a procedendo to the County Court.
We do not concur in that view. The appeal from the County to the Superior Court did not bring up the whole case, but only the motion for an order of sale, leaving the original judgment and levy in the County Court, to which court the sheriff must make return, in order to have satisfaction of the judgment entered there. We are, therefore, of opinion that the further proceedings should be had in the County Court, and that it was proper to award a procedendo. Morehead v. R. R. Co., 7 Jones, 500.
Per Ctjriah. Judgment affirmed. Motion for an order of sale should be allowed. Issue a writ of procedendo.