ARMSTRONG v. BEATY, 1 N.C. 259 (1800)

JOHN ARMSTRONG ET AL. v. WILLIAM BEATY ET AL. — Conf., 33.

Court of Conference
(Spring Term, 1800.)

When a defendant is served with a copy of a decree of the Court of Equity and refuses to perform it, an attachment is the proper mode of compelling performance.

This was a case in equity from Salisbury District; the record states, that at September Term, 1799, the complainants obtained a decree against the defendants, and had legally served them with a writ of

Page 222

execution of the said decree, as appears from the return made on said writ by the sheriff of Lincoln; it further states that William Beaty, one of the defendants, has absolutely refused, and still does refuse to perform the said decree; and the question reserved for the opinion of the Judges at their meeting this term was, what process is proper to enforce compliance with a decree made by the Superior Courts of Equity.

JOHNSTON and MACAY, JJ.

The defendant, William Beaty, having been duly served with a copy of the decree made in this case, and having refused to perform that decree, we are of opinion that an attachment ought to issue to compel a performance.

NOTE. — In decrees of a Court of Equity for any sum of money, execution may issue as at law. See 1 Rev. Stat., ch. 32, sec. 6.

(260)