Cureton v. . Garrison

16 S.E. 338, 111 N.C. 271
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided September 5, 1892·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Clark, J.:

Where a witness, though duly subpoenaed, is-neither examined nor tendered to the opposite party on the trial, his attendance can be taxed only against the party who summoned him. Loftis v. Raxter, 66 N. C., 340; Wooley v. Robinson, 52 N. C., 30. Besides, not more than two witnesses-summoned by the successful party to prove a single fact can be taxed against the party cast. The Code, § 1370; State v. Massey, 104 N. C., 877. The motion to retax can be made before the Clerk who has made the taxation, whence an appeal lies to the Judge at Chambers ; or it can be made in the first instance before the Judge at term'time by virtue of his supervisory power over the action of the Clerk. In re Smith, 105 N. C., 167.

No Error.

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

Cureton v. . Garrison, 16 S.E. 338, 111 N.C. 271 (N.C. 1892).

16 S.E. 338 (Cureton v. . Garrison) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Leary v. Nantahala Power and Light Co.
332 S.E.2d 703 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1985)
McClure v. . Fulbright
146 S.E. 74 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1929)
Staley v. . Staley
94 S.E. 407 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)
Hobbs v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
65 S.E. 755 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1909)
Herring v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
56 S.E. 873 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1907)
Brown v. Railroad
52 S.E. 198 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1905)
Moore v. Guano Co.
48 S.E. 641 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1904)
Sitton v. . Lumber Co.
47 S.E. 609 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1904)