Doe on the Demise of the Heirs of Thompson v. Matthews

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Doe on the Demise of the Heirs of Thompson v. Matthews

61 N.C. 15

DecidedJune 5, 1866

StatusPublished

This text of 61 N.C. 15 (Doe on the Demise of the Heirs of Thompson v. Matthews) 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 the Demise of the Heirs of Thompson v. Matthews, 61 N.C. 15 (N.C. 1866).

Pincite

Opinion

Battlb, J.

The only question in this case is, whether the parol testimony offered by the defendant, to show that Jollie was her tenant whilst he was living on the land in controversy, was admissible. We are of the opinion that it was, and, therefore, that his Honor erred in rejecting it. The testimony proposed to be given was simply the declaration of Jollie, made while he was residing on the land, that he was there as the tenant of the defendant. The fact that he was on the land, was one which the defendant had clearly the right to prove by parol; and the declaration of the tenant was a part of the fact necessarily admissible, for the purpose of explaining it. The terms of the written lease between the *17 defendant and Jollie were in no wise material to be shown-, and hence it was unnecessary to produce it. In the settlement, case of Rex v. the Inhabitants of Holy Trinity, 14 Com. Law, 101, it became important for the defendants to prove that the pauper had gained a settlement in another parish by the occupatiomof a tenant therein, and the payment of rent therefor; and they were permitted to ghow those facts by parol, although the pauper held the tenement under a lease-in writing. Bailey, J., said-, “ The general-rule is, that the contents of a written instrument cannot be proved without producing it. But, although there may be a- written instrument between the landlord and tenant, defining the terms of the- tenancy, the fact of the tenancy may be proved by parol without proving the terms of it. It was unnecessary in this case to prove by the written instrument either the fact of the tenancy-or.-the value of tfee premises.”

In the case now- before us, the fact of the tenancy having been properly shown by parol, the declaration of the tenant as-to the person -under whom he held, was admissible by the same kind of evidence as jpars-rei gestee. This principle is-well established in this State, by several decisions, of which Askew v. Reynolds, 1 D. and B., 367, is the leading case. For the error committed in-the- rejection of. the testimony offered to show that Jollie held the land in controversy as the tenant of the defendant, the judgment must be reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.

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

Battlb, J.

The only question in this case is, whether the parol testimony offered by the defendant, to show that Jollie was her tenant whilst he was living on the land in controversy, was admissible. We are of the opinion that it was, and, therefore, that his Honor erred in rejecting it. The testimony proposed to be given was simply the declaration of Jollie, made while he was residing on the land, that he was there as the tenant of the defendant. The fact that he was on the land, was one which the defendant had clearly the right to prove by parol; and the declaration of the tenant was a part of the fact necessarily admissible, for the purpose of explaining it. The terms of the written lease between the *17 defendant and Jollie were in no wise material to be shown-, and hence it was unnecessary to produce it. In the settlement, case of Rex v. the Inhabitants of Holy Trinity, 14 Com. Law, 101, it became important for the defendants to prove that the pauper had gained a settlement in another parish by the occupatiomof a tenant therein, and the payment of rent therefor; and they were permitted to ghow those facts by parol, although the pauper held the tenement under a lease-in writing. Bailey, J., said-, “ The general-rule is, that the contents of a written instrument cannot be proved without producing it. But, although there may be a- written instrument between the landlord and tenant, defining the terms of the- tenancy, the fact of the tenancy may be proved by parol without proving the terms of it. It was unnecessary in this case to prove by the written instrument either the fact of the tenancy-or.-the value of tfee premises.”

In the case now- before us, the fact of the tenancy having been properly shown by parol, the declaration of the tenant as-to the person -under whom he held, was admissible by the same kind of evidence as jpars-rei gestee. This principle is-well established in this State, by several decisions, of which Askew v. Reynolds, 1 D. and B., 367, is the leading case. For the error committed in-the- rejection of. the testimony offered to show that Jollie held the land in controversy as the tenant of the defendant, the judgment must be reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 N.C. 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-on-the-demise-of-the-heirs-of-thompson-v-matthews-nc-1866.