Carrington v. . Allen

87 N.C. 354
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided October 5, 1882·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Smith, C. J.

The first' alleged error is disposed of in the late ease of Stronach v. Bledsoe, 85 N. C., 473, to which we refer without further comment.

2. The second assigned error is equally without support, as the instrument spoken of related to a collateral matter, and is not within the rule which excludes secondary when primary evidence is attainable. This is settled in Pollock v. Wilcox, 68 N. C., 46; and State v. Carter, 72 N. C., 99.

'3. The issue as appears from the complaint and answer, and the concessions of counsel, comprehended the only matter in controversy, and the court properly refused to distract the the attention of the jury by introducing unnecessary issues, and confining them to the one point — the illegality of the consideration on which the note was executed.

There is no error and the judgment must be affirmed.

No error. Affirmed,

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

Carrington v. . Allen, 87 N.C. 354 (N.C. 1882).

87 N.C. 354 (Carrington v. . Allen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Royster v. Hancock
69 S.E.2d 29 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
Hunt v. . Eure
127 S.E. 593 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Morrison v. . Hartley
101 S.E. 375 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1919)
Share v. Coats
137 N.W. 402 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1912)
Morehead Banking Co. v. Walker
28 S.E. 253 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
Faulcon v. . Johnson
9 S.E. 394 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1889)
Cade v. . Davis
2 S.E. 225 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1887)