Davenport v. . Lynch

51 N.C. 545
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedAugust 5, 1859
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 51 N.C. 545 (Davenport v. . Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Davenport v. . Lynch, 51 N.C. 545 (N.C. 1859).

Opinion

EufuiN, J.

Yery clearly, the declarations of William Davenport, were not substantive evidence of the plaintiff’s mental incapacity. They stood on the same ground with declarations made by any other person.

We think, upon the other parts of the case^ that his Honor might well have left it to the jury to infer malice, and an evil motive throughout, from the want of probable cause — the utter groundlessness for the successive applications by the defendants for the proceedings in lunacy. But, wo suppose, as the testimony is not given, that it'was not necessary to submit the case in that point of view, to the jury; because the Court put the case on the ground of an express malicious and combined purpose in the defendants to pervert the proceedings in lunacy to effect the ends of unjustly harrassing the plaintiff, separating his grandson from him, and indirectly impeaching the validity of his will after death, instead of being bona fide, for the purpose of having due care taken of the person and property of one really incapable of managing his affairs. In such a case of real conspiracy to vex a person, who appears to be in no way a proper subject for such proceedings, the actors can in no degree be justified or excused by any professional advice; for such advice is only evidence to rebut the imputation of malice implied, and, therefore, does not palliate the wrong done upon an express and formal design to oppress, though done under color and pretense of such advice. It would be a reproach to the law, if such gross and repeated injuries, upon such unworthy motives, could not be redressed.

PaR CueiaM, Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Deshawn Gervin v. Pamela Florence
139 F.4th 1236 (Eleventh Circuit, 2025)
Bailey v. McGill
100 S.E.2d 860 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
Barnette v. Woody
88 S.E.2d 223 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)
Bryant v. Murray
79 S.E.2d 243 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
Lueptow v. Schraeder
277 N.W. 124 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1938)
Dickerson v. Atlantic Refining Co.
201 N.C. 90 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)
Dickerson v. . Refining Co.
159 S.E. 446 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)
Lindsay v. Woods
27 S.W.2d 263 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)
Coulter v. Coulter
214 P. 400 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1923)
Downing v. . Stone
68 S.E. 9 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1910)
Cooper v. Flemming
114 Tenn. 40 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1904)
Thurber v. Eastern Building & Loan Ass'n
116 N.C. 75 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1895)
Thurber v. . B. and L. Assn.
21 S.E. 193 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1895)
Smith v. Eastern Building & Loan Ass'n
20 S.E. 963 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 N.C. 545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davenport-v-lynch-nc-1859.