Hodges v. Moore, 1 N.C. 150, 1 Mart. 150 (1793)

1793 · United States Circuit Court for the District of North Carolina

1 N.C. 150, 1 Mart. 150

Hodges vs. Moore.

Trin. 2 Car.

THE defendant being a burgess of the Parliament, brought in a letter from the Prolocutor to stay, &c.

Per totam curium. It is disallowed. He ought to have brought a writ of priviledge, and might be relieved that way. When Thorpe was Speaker of the Parliament, he had a supersedeas for all actions: it was held bad. He ought to have had a supersedeas for every action.

Crew, C. J.

Let him throw himself on the justice of the court; and as Parliament stand to their priviledges, so do we to ours. In any case they may restrain the parties or their counsels, but never the court, who are not bound to take notice of it, without special writ. And the parties who prosecute do it at their peril.

Noy said, that in M. 12 E. 4, in the pleas of the Exchequer, there is an excellent precedent, on the learning respecting the priviledge of Parliament: In Marsh’s case, antea, p. 48. Bendl. 184. Noy 83.