Doe on demise of Wagstaff v. Smith

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Doe on demise of Wagstaff v. Smith

9 N.C. 45

DecidedJune 15, 1822

StatusPublished

This text of 9 N.C. 45 (Doe on demise of Wagstaff v. Smith) 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

Doe on demise of Wagstaff v. Smith, 9 N.C. 45 (N.C. 1822).

Pincite

Opinion

Taylor, Chief-Justice,

delivered ihe opinion of the Court.

The purpose for which the registered copy of the deed, from James Smith, to the Defendant, was offered in evi-dente, was to shew tiiat the latter claimed title to the w' ole land, and that the agreement, under winds he entered, had expired, if he did not claim under that deed, injustice was done him by its admission; if he did so claim, it tended to the right decision of the questions in dispute. The only advantage iso could gain, by having no!ice to produce the deed, was, that he might come prepared with evidence to repel the inferences which might be drawn from the deed. But, as upon a motion for a new trial, he refused to deny that he claimed under the deed, it warrants a strong presumption that he did j and, therefore, (without giving an opinion as to the admission of the copy) as it does not appear that any injustice has been done by the verdict, the motion for a new trial must be overruled.

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

Taylor, Chief-Justice,

delivered ihe opinion of the Court.

The purpose for which the registered copy of the deed, from James Smith, to the Defendant, was offered in evi-dente, was to shew tiiat the latter claimed title to the w' ole land, and that the agreement, under winds he entered, had expired, if he did not claim under that deed, injustice was done him by its admission; if he did so claim, it tended to the right decision of the questions in dispute. The only advantage iso could gain, by having no!ice to produce the deed, was, that he might come prepared with evidence to repel the inferences which might be drawn from the deed. But, as upon a motion for a new trial, he refused to deny that he claimed under the deed, it warrants a strong presumption that he did j and, therefore, (without giving an opinion as to the admission of the copy) as it does not appear that any injustice has been done by the verdict, the motion for a new trial must be overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 N.C. 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-on-demise-of-wagstaff-v-smith-nc-1822.