Aycock v. . Harrison

Reade, J. The return of the sheriff, on the venditioni exponas issued from May term 1866 of the County Court, “No sale on account of the stay law,” was without warrant of law. The plaintiff’s motion at November term, 1866, for an alias ven. ex. ought to have been allowed. The plaintiff’s motion at Fall Term of the Superior Court, 1866, lor a writ of pro-cedendo ought. to have been allowed. The refusal of the motion by his Honor was error. But it was an error which can not now be cured; for the Court, in which the judgment and execution were, has been abolished. There is, therefore, no Court to which the writ of procedendo can issue. There is a provision for transferring the case from the County into the Superior Court, but whether that has-been done, we are not informed. At least, there is no remedy which we can administer as the case now stands. The plaintiff is entitled to judgment for his costs in this Court, and the cause will be remanded,, that the plaintiff may proceed as he may be advised. This will be certified, &c. Per Curiam. Error.