Case Name: DEN ON DEMISE OF FABIUS D GIBBS v. SAMUEL BROOKS
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1854-06
Citations: 1 Jones 448
Docket Number: 
Parties: DEN ON DEMISE OF FABIUS D GIBBS v. SAMUEL BROOKS.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 448–449

Head Matter:
DEN ON DEMISE OF FABIUS D GIBBS v. SAMUEL BROOKS.
'Tin! Count'- Court liar no power to authorise an amendment in the return of a levy of It Jurt.ee’s execution upon laud, by a constable, after the salo of the
Ejectmfnt, tried before his' Honor Judge Ellis, at the Spring Term, 1854, of Hyde Superior Court.
The plaintiff claimed title under a sale by the sheriff of Hyde, under a-venditioni, founded upon a Justice’s judgment, and a levy upon the premises in question by a constable. The levy made by the constable, and endorsed on the execution in his hands, was as follows :
“ This day levied on Silvester G. Swindell’s right and title of land that he inherited by Jackson Swindell, dec’d, this March 24th, 1849.” (Signed.)
After the sale of the land levied on, and after the commencement of this action, to wit, at May Term 1854, the County Court of Hyde granted leave to the constable to amend his levy nunc pro tunc, which was accordingly done, so as to be as follows:
“ This day levied on Silvester G. Swindell’s right in a tract of land adjoining Fabius D. Gibbs, and Festus A. Gibbs* on Wysocking creek, March 24th, 1849.” (Signed.)
It was contended by the defendant’s counsel that the original levy was defective, and did not authorize the proceedings had upon it, and that the amendment exceeded the power of the County Court, and was therefore void. .Ilis Honor being of this opinion, the plaintiff .took a non suit, and appealed to this Court.
No counsel for the plaintiff.
Donnell, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Battle, J.
The amendment in this case was allowed after the sale under a venditioni exponas, and the County Court had no power to make it, as was expressly dec'dod by this Court at the last Term, at Morganton, in the case of Phillipse v. Higdon, Busb. Rep. 380. The judgment of non-smt was proper, and must be affirmed.
Per Cuejam. Judgment affirmed.