Hall v. . Boykin

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Hall v. . Boykin

190 S.E. 228, 211 N.C. 391

DecidedMarch 17, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 190 S.E. 228 (Hall v. . Boykin) 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

Hall v. . Boykin, 190 S.E. 228, 211 N.C. 391 (N.C. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Civil action to recover on promissory note and to foreclose mortgage security.

Plaintiff alleges that she is the owner and holder of a note for $552.50, executed by Willie G. Boykin to J. W. Boyette on 1 December, 1929, payable 1 January, 1931, and secured by mortgage, which allegation is denied in the answer of J. W. Boyette.

When the pleadings were read, the court ruled that the burden of proof was on the defendant; whereupon, the defendant Boyette proffered testimony to the effect that he was the owner of the "Boykin note and mortgage described in the pleadings," which was excluded. Exception.

From a directed verdict and judgment for plaintiff, the defendant Boyette appeals, assigning errors. The exception to the directed verdict is well taken. Plaintiff offered no evidence under the court's ruling, which was erroneous, and the verdict is unsupported by the record. Hayes v. Green, 187 N.C. 776, 123 S.E. 7;Bank v. School Committee, 121 N.C. 107, 28 S.E. 134.

New trial. *Page 392

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

Civil action to recover on promissory note and to foreclose mortgage security.

Plaintiff alleges that she is the owner and holder of a note for $552.50, executed by Willie G. Boykin to J. W. Boyette on 1 December, 1929, payable 1 January, 1931, and secured by mortgage, which allegation is denied in the answer of J. W. Boyette.

When the pleadings were read, the court ruled that the burden of proof was on the defendant; whereupon, the defendant Boyette proffered testimony to the effect that he was the owner of the "Boykin note and mortgage described in the pleadings," which was excluded. Exception.

From a directed verdict and judgment for plaintiff, the defendant Boyette appeals, assigning errors. The exception to the directed verdict is well taken. Plaintiff offered no evidence under the court's ruling, which was erroneous, and the verdict is unsupported by the record. Hayes v. Green, 187 N.C. 776, 123 S.E. 7;Bank v. School Committee, 121 N.C. 107, 28 S.E. 134.

New trial. *Page 392

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.E. 228, 211 N.C. 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-boykin-nc-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack