A request in an improper time, is like no request, as an averment at an undue time. Walsingham's case, Plowd.
Good v. Lawrence, 1 N.C. 177, 1 Mart. 177 (1793)
1793
·
United States Circuit Court for the District of North Carolina
1 N.C. 177, 1 Mart. 177
*Good vs. Lawrence.
Mich. 2 Car.
ERROR on a judgment in an action on the case, in which the judgment, after a verdict for the plaintiff, was entered thus: Ideo ad petit. quœent. considerat, est adjudicat. et assess. per cur. quod quœrens recuper. damna by the jurors taxed, necnon ex incremento dam. &c. Jermyn assigned errorss.
1. It ought to have been only consideratum.
And the court ruled that this was error. The judgment is the act of the court, and the shortest is the best. If the form was not strickly adhered to, there would be no end of new and senseless words: and by and by, it would require to have a new judgment, in order to expound a former one.
2. Damages are increased without the assent of the parties, or the request of the plaintiff, and the request is not well alledged, because it is not necessary to have a request for judgment of damages assessed by the jurors.
concurred. Ideo judicum reversatur. Noy 89. Bendl. 198. 1 Roll. 771. Poph. 312. Antea, p, 76. 83. Postea, p. 188.