Opinion
(July Term, 1817.)
Where the plaintiff sued out sixteen warrants against the defendant upon due-bills, the highest of the warrants including only $4, the court, on motion, refused to consolidate the warrants, principally on account of the policy of the act against due-bills.
THE plaintiff took out sixteen warrants against the defendant, fifteen of which were for $4 each, and one for $2, upon due-bills issued by him, all of the same tenor and date, but for different sums, the highest of which was 25 cents, and the lowest 2 1/2 cents. Upon the causes being taken by appeal to the county court, an order was there made to consolidate them into two, from which Smith appealed to the Superior Court of Cumberland, where, upon the motion to consolidate being made before SEAWELL, J., he refused it, and directed a procedendo to issue to the county court, from which judgment Bowell appealed to this Court. (634)
Shaw for appellant.
Henry, contra.
The Legislature have thought proper to attempt the suppression of the practice of issuing due-bills, as one extremely mischievous to the community; and one method they have adopted is to make the person liable to an action who issues a due-bill for a less sum than ten shillings. It would materially weaken the effect of this law, and disarm it of its sting, if, when such separate actions are brought, the court should interpose a consolidation rule. Such interference would be peculiarly improper in the present case, in which the (635) plaintiff, by warranting and blending $4 in each warrant, has pursued a much less rigorous course than he was allowed by law to do. This consideration, together with the stay of execution which the defendant might have availed himself of, had a larger sum been claimed in one warrant, induce us to concur in the opinion given by the judge who heard the motion. His judgment on the motion is therefore affirmed.
NOTE. — See Person v. State Bank, 11 N.C. 294.
Cited: Caldwell v. Beatty, 69 N.C. 371.