Thomas v. Womack, 64–657,..
Thompson v. Badham, 70–141,..
Thompson v. Berry, 64–79,.

Thompson v. Berry, 64-81,..

Thompson v. Berry, 64-344,..

Thompson, Moore v., 69-120,.

Thompson, Rowland v., 64–714,.
Thompson, Rowland v., 65-110,..
Thompson, Treasurer v., 65--406,..
Thorp, Norwood v., 64-682,..

Threadgill v. C. C. R. R. Co, 73-178,.
Tiddy, Bank v., 67–169,..

Toms v. Warson, 66-417,.

Treasurer v. Thompson, 65-406,.
Trezevant, Phillips v., 70-176,.

Trotter, Garrett v., 65-430,..

Troutman, Lippard v., 72-551,
Trustees v. Satchwell, 71-111,
Tuck v. Hunt, 73-24,..
Tucker v. Davis, 77-330,.......

Tucker v. City of Raleigh, 75–267,
Tucker, Hamlin v., 72-502,..........
Tupper, Perry v., 77-413,.........

Turner, Brown v., 70—93,.

Turner, Goldsborough v., 67—403,..

Turner v. Richmond & Danville R. R. Co., 70—1,

Tweed, Dellinger v., 66-206,

Underwood, Claflin v., 75-485,.........

University v. McIver, 72–76,..

University v. N. C. R. R. Co., 76–103,.
Utley v. Foy, 70—303,.

Utley v. Peters, 72-525,.

Valentine v. Holleman, 63—475,

Valentine, Moore v., 77-188,.

Vannoy v. Haymore, 71-128,.

Vann v. Pipkin, 77-408,.

Vaughan, Purnell v., 77–268,.
Vernon, Griel v., 65–76,.
Vest v. Cooper, 68—131,
Vinson, State v., 63-335,......

Von Glahn v. DeRossett, 76–292,.
Von Glahn v. Harris, 73-323,..
Von Glahn v. Savage, 73—333,
Waddell, McIvir v., 75–361,...
Waddell, Melvin v., 75-361,.
Waddell v. Wood, 64-624,.
Wade v. Newbern, 72-198,.
Wade v. Newbern, 73-318,.
Wall v. Covington, 76-150,.
Wall v. Fairley, 73-464,..
Wall, Hoskins v., 77-249,..

Waldrop v. Green, 63-344,,

Walker, McKeithan v., 66-95,...

Wallington v. Montgomery, 74-372...

Wallis, Logan v., 76–416,..

Walsh v. Hall, 66-233,

.122, 317

64

.70, 219, 292, 295 .....295, 309, 321

309

20

104, 254

201

101

207, 209, 316

301

253

90, 164 101

.213, 217, 229, 230, 276

..12, 91, 93, 99, 117

.16, 27, 28, 42, 56

109

298

134

105

114

.199, 204

..55, 298, 299

189

.82, 83

240

217

105

95, 304

55, 100

85

8

156

241

301

156

124

252

195

62, 94, 103

62, 95

62

18

23

124

256

125

..245, 246, 247

95

241

309

210, 226, 230

252

115

100, 101, 121, 205

Williams v. Sharpe, 70-582,.
Williams, Sharpe v., 76-87,..
Williams v. Williams, 70-189,.
Williams v. Williams, 70-665,.
Williams v. Williams, 71–427,.
Williamson, Thaxton v., 72—125,.
Willoughby, Robinson v., 67—84,.
Willsap, Shuler v., 71-297,

W. & T. R. R. Co. v. Battle, 66-540,..

W. & W. R. R. Co., Powell v., 68, 395,.

Wilson v. Arentz, 70-670,

Wilson & Shober v. Bank of Lexington,72-621,

Wilson v. Barnhill, 64-121,..

Wilson, Henley v., 77-216,..

Wilson & Shober v. Moore, 172-558,.

Wilson v. Sparks, 72-208,...

Winborne v. Bryan, 73-47,

Winchester v. Gaddy, 72-115,..

123

.210, 310

16

124

267

288

122

56

154

196

..55, 56, 62, 95

95

133, 135, 143, 167

55

.73, 18, 121

240

195, 253

242

Windley v. Bradway, 77-333,..

Winslow v. Com'rs Perquimans Co., 64-218,.

Winslow, Johnson v., 63-552,..

Winslow v. Weith, 66-432,

Winslow v. Wood, 70-430,.

Winstead, Batts v., 77--238,..

Wittowsky v. Warren, 69-38,.
Wittowsky v. Wesson, 71-451,.
Wolfe, Clawson v., 77-100,..
Wolfenden, Campbell v., 74—103,.
Womack, Thomas v., 64-657,.
Womble v. Fraps, 77-198,.
Wood v. Harrell, 74-338,.

Wood, Waddell v., 64--624,.
Wood, Winslow v., 70-430,.
Woodfin v. Beach, 70-455,.
Woodfin, Harshaw v., 64–568,.
Woodhouse v. Simmons, 73-30,.
Woodley v. Gilliam, 64--649,..
Woodsworth v. Davis, 75–159,.
Woody v. Jordan, 69-189,.

Wooten v. Maultsby, 69-462,.

Wright v. McCormick, 67–27,

Wright v. McCormick, 77–158,...

Yancey Co., Commissioners of, v., Piercy, 72—181,.

Young, Love v., 69-95.....

Young v. Phifer, 72-529,..

Young, Sumner v., 65-579..

York, Baldwin v., 71-463..

THE

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE."

WHEREAS, it is ordained by Section 1, Article IV, of the Constitution of North Carolina, that:

"The distinction between actions at law and suits in equity and the forms of all such actions and suits, shall be abolished, and there shall be in this State but one form of action for the enforcement or protection of private rights or the redress of private wrongs, which shall be denominated a civil action; and every action prosecuted by the people of the State as a party, against a person charged with a public offence, shall be termed a criminal action. Feigned issues shall also be abolished, and the fact at issue tried by order of court, before a jury."

The General Assembly of the State of North Carolina, for the purpose of carrying into effect the said section, and regulating the practice and procedure in civil actions, in the several courts of this State, do enact as follows:

The Code of Civil Procedure is one act, and no part of it went into operation before the 24th day of August, A. D. 1868, but it went into effect as a whole, on that day. Ragland v. Currin, 64-355.

So much of the Revised Code, in regard to the procedure in the courts as is not inconsistent with, nor superseded by, the Code of Civil Procedure, is still in force. Clerk Office's v. Huffsteller, 67-449. The Code of Civil Procedure is a mere supplement to the practice and procedure established by the Revised Code. Boylston Ins. Co. v. Davis, 74-78.

aThe acts constituting the Code of Civil Procedure embraced all that was contained in the volume published under the supervision of the Code Commission in 1868, and entitled "The Code of Civil Procedure," to the close of Title XVIII, Sec. 416, page 153 of that volume, except Title II and Chapter VIII of Title VIII. This has, very properly, been decided by the court, to be one act. The other acts included in that volume, were directed to be published