Cogdell v. . Barfield

9 N.C. 332
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided June 5, 1823·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The affidavits show that there is no ground on which the Court could grant a new trial. The Defendant Barfield, neglected the case from the beginning, on very insufficient reasons, whereby a default was taken against him ; and afterwards on the trial, in - curred the risk of a counsel’s attendance who did not practise in the Court, while he was told of others that would be in attendance. To award a new trial for the reasons here offered, were to encourage inattention, and promote litigation.

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

Cogdell v. . Barfield, 9 N.C. 332 (N.C. 1823).

9 N.C. 332 (Cogdell v. . Barfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sutherland v. . McLean
154 S.E. 662 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)
Andrews v. . Devane
3 N.C. 373 (Superior Court of North Carolina, 1805)