Harris v. . Carrington

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Harris v. . Carrington

20 S.E. 452, 115 N.C. 187

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 5, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 S.E. 452 (Harris v. . Carrington) 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

Harris v. . Carrington, 20 S.E. 452, 115 N.C. 187 (N.C. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, J.:

The appellee returned a counter-case as a statement of his exceptions to appellant’s case. This is often convenient, and sometimes it is the only mode in which the appellee can intelligently present his objections. The practice has always been recognized as a substantial compliance with the statute. State v. Gooch, 94 N. C., 982; Horne v. Smith, 105 N. C., 322; McDaniel v. Scurloch, at this term. The Court adopted the counter-case. We must, therefore, take it as the “ case on appeal.” The defendant testified that he signed the note as surety, and that fact was known to the payee at the time. He then called the payee (the note having been transferred since maturity to the plaintiff), who *190 testified that he did not know of the suretyship till after this action was brought. The Court instructed the jury, if they believed the evidence, to find the issue whether the suretyship of defendant was “ known to the payee at the time of signing the note ” in the affirmative. There being a conflict of evidence, this was error, for which there must be a new trial. New Trial.

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

Clark, J.:

The appellee returned a counter-case as a statement of his exceptions to appellant’s case. This is often convenient, and sometimes it is the only mode in which the appellee can intelligently present his objections. The practice has always been recognized as a substantial compliance with the statute. State v. Gooch, 94 N. C., 982; Horne v. Smith, 105 N. C., 322; McDaniel v. Scurloch, at this term. The Court adopted the counter-case. We must, therefore, take it as the “ case on appeal.” The defendant testified that he signed the note as surety, and that fact was known to the payee at the time. He then called the payee (the note having been transferred since maturity to the plaintiff), who *190 testified that he did not know of the suretyship till after this action was brought. The Court instructed the jury, if they believed the evidence, to find the issue whether the suretyship of defendant was “ known to the payee at the time of signing the note ” in the affirmative. There being a conflict of evidence, this was error, for which there must be a new trial. New Trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 S.E. 452, 115 N.C. 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-carrington-nc-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack