Case Name: McMillan v. Smith & Walker
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1815-01
Citations: 2 Car. L. Rep.  75
Docket Number: 
Parties: McMillan v. Smith & Walker.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 75–82

Head Matter:
McMillan v. Smith & Walker.
A certiorari had been granted in this case by Lowrie, J. upon the affidavit of Smith, which stated in substance, that a suit was instituted against him and Walker in New-Hanover county court, by McMillan; and that the cause was pressed in the deponent’s absence, on Monday early in the afternoon of the first day of court, and a judgment obtained. That he understood a standing rule of the court had set apart the first day of the court for county business, and believed that no jury cause was usually pressed on that day; that the county business was not finished when the judgment was taken, which was done by surprise in the absence of his witnesses and himself, although the plaintiff knew that he defended the suit in person. That the note on which the suit was brought, was lent by him to Walker without receiving any consideration, and passed by Walker on an usurious contract, which plea had been entered and could have been maintained, had the witnesses attended. That the suit was brought against both the maker and indorser.
The counter affidavits of Mr. Meares and Mr. Davis, stated that the practice of the county court was to give a preference to motions on the first and second days; but if no motions were made, to proceed peremptorily on the docket, unless postponed by consent of the bar. After those days jury causes have a preference, although motions are still made through the term when no cause is on trial; that judgments were taken on the first day of the term immediately preceding that, when the judgment complained of was taken; and that a motion was made shortly after the last judgment was entered.
The cause came on upon these affidavits before the superior court of New-Hanover, when the Judge ordered the certiorari to be dismissed, from which decision an appeal was taken to this court.
Together with these affidavits, two others were transmitted to the supreme court, which, by an endorsement of the clerk of New-Hanover superior court, appear to have been filed in his office posterior to the term of that court. The affidavit of McMillan states his information and belief, that the note was transferred to his agent for a good and valuable consideration; and that Smith, after the judgment recovered in the county court, promised to pay the money if indulgence were granted him, and it was the refusal of this which prompted him to apply for a certiorari.
The affidavit of McPherson states, that Smith told him, after the judgment, that the debt was just, that he only wanted time to pay the money; and that he intimated no design to apply for a certiorari, until indulgence had been refused by McMillan.
Strong, for the plaintiff.
—The ground of surprise is completely negatived by the affidavits of Meares and Davis, which shew that the judgment was taken in the ordinary course of practice. Motions, it is true, were entitled to a preference on the first day; but when none such were before the court, the business of the docket was to be kept in progress. Was that to be suspended until it could be ascertained whether all the motions had been brought forward? The defendant then had an opportunity of defending himself, and as he shews no reason why he did not appeal, he cannot be entitled to the remedy he seeks.
Henderson, for the defendant.
This cause ought to be retried to give the defendant an opportunity to substantiate his plea of “ usury ;" because it appears by his affidavit, that the note was obtained from Walker upon an usurious contract. Howis this answered ? McMillan says he believes it was fairly transferred to his agent; but McPherson, the agent, who obtained it from Walker, and must have known the consideration, is utterly silent on that head. This tends strongly to corroborate Smith’s affidavit.

Opinion:
Cameron, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
In deciding on the propriety of retaining or dismissing the writs of certiorari obtained by the defendant Smith, a majority of the court exclude from consideration the affidavits of the plaintiff and his agent, which appear to have been improperly filed and sent up with the papers in this cause; in as much as they have been made and sworn to since the cases were transferred to this court by appeal; and regard only the affidavits which were read in the court below.
Whenever a party applies for an extraordinary remedy, to have his cause re-examined in a superior tribunal, he ought to shew some satisfactory reason why he was unable to avail himself of the ordinary remedy by appeal from the judgment of the inferior jurisdiction.
The judgments complained of by the defendant, were taken, according to his own statement, on the first day of the county court; he made no attempt to appeal, nor does he pretend to account for his not having done so—consequently, the writs of certiorari must be dismissed with costs.
Judgment for plaintiff.