Bedell v. President of the State Bank

12 N.C. 483
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided June 5, 1828·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Taylor, Chief-Justice.

it is impossible to consider a notice of this kind sufficient, without opening á door to abuses of the most mischievous tendency. Testimony by depositions, is at best, inferior to that by witnesses, and ought to be so guarded, that the Court may have every reasonable assurance of its truth. Under a vague notice of this kind, a man might be kept three months *484 from home, if tfce witness did not appear tili the last Saturday in September. The utmost extent which has vet been allowed, is one week, where the deposition was to he taken at a great distance from the residence of the parties.

Pl5K CüKIAM.--Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bedell v. President of the State Bank, 12 N.C. 483 (N.C. 1828).

12 N.C. 483 (Bedell v. President of the State Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harris v. . Peterson
4 N.C. 358 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1816)
Ridge v. . Lewis
1 N.C. 599 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1804)