Case Name: Crossman vs. Hume
Court: United States Circuit Court for the District of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1793
Citations: 1 Mart. 258
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Crossman vs. Hume.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 258–259

Head Matter:
*Crossman vs. Hume.
Mich. 3 Car.
ACTION on the case, brought in villa de Lanceston in comitatu Cumberland, and judgment was given there, pro qunæente. Error was brought here, because issue being joined there, the venire facias was awarded de viceneto de Lanc, where it ought to have been de Lanc. for the visne de Lanc. extends over Lanc. and the jurisdiction extended to the vill de. Lanc. 8 H. 5. is a different case, for when issue is taken in the superior court, it is taken of something triable in Lanc. the venire de vicineto de Lanc. it is well: for the court has power to award it. But it is ptherwise here,
Rolls, e contra.
When nothing is to the contrary in an appearance, it shall be understood to be well, and within the jurisdiction. Proctor and Clifton’s case, 10 Jac. In an action brought in Coventry, and venire facias in C. B. where it was de vicineto civitatis Ebor. D. P. 3 Car. Which case was held bad. I was of counsel in a case wherein it was awarded so. It canpot be well, except by intendment, The case of 8 H. is much in point.

Opinion:
Jones, J.
The visne ought to be of all the vills in the hundred.
Rolls insisted on Procton and Clifton's case.
Doderidge, J.
There the court had power.
Jones, J. The county of Coventry cannot, any more than a city extend to other vills. This case was so adjudged in H. 5.
Rolls. There is no difference between 5 Jac. where in an action brought in Lanc. the venire was de vicineto as here. [He asked the attorney of his client for the record, and he said secretly, that he had inspected it and the judgment was reversed.]
Two other exceptions were taken to the same matter.
A. and B. were bound to C. and C. promised B. that if he would procure a legal process, in a corporation, so that might arrest him on the bond, that then he would dischange B. and he alledges that he arrested him in a corporative, and shews that it was by stannery-process, &c. It was said it is no good consideration; for he does not shew what process, nor that it was a legal process.
Hyde, C. J. and Jones, J.
As to the first it was well, for the plaintiff might, if he chose, have the benefit of it. As to the second, it is immaterial whether the process be legal or not, provided it be taken upon it. Noy 96. 2 Rolls 623. Jones 371. 2 Cr. 307. 1 Bulstr. 156. 2 Roll. 622.