Harris v. . Powell

Superior Court of North Carolina

Harris v. . Powell

3 N.C. 349

Superior Court of North Carolina·Decided July 5, 1805·Published

Opinion

NOTE. — See Standen v. Bains, 2 N.C. 238; Tate v. Southard, 8 N.C. 45;Taylor v. Shuford, 11 N.C. 116; Mendenhall v. Cassells, 20 N.C. 49. But *Page 306 the rule of admitting hearsay in questions of boundary must be confined to what deceased persons have said. Gervin v. Meredith, 4 N.C. 439. And the hearsay evidence must not be post litem motam. Dancy v. Sugg, 19 N.C. 515.

Cited: Hurley v. Morgan, 18 N.C. 430; Hartzog v. Hubbard, 19 N.C. 243;Whitehurst v. Pettipher, 87 N.C. 179; Smith v. Headrick, 93 N.C. 212;Shaffer v. Gaynor, 117 N.C. 20; Yow v. Hamilton, 136 N.C. 359.

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

NOTE. — See Standen v. Bains, 2 N.C. 238; Tate v. Southard, 8 N.C. 45;Taylor v. Shuford, 11 N.C. 116; Mendenhall v. Cassells, 20 N.C. 49. But *Page 306 the rule of admitting hearsay in questions of boundary must be confined to what deceased persons have said. Gervin v. Meredith, 4 N.C. 439. And the hearsay evidence must not be post litem motam. Dancy v. Sugg, 19 N.C. 515.

Cited: Hurley v. Morgan, 18 N.C. 430; Hartzog v. Hubbard, 19 N.C. 243;Whitehurst v. Pettipher, 87 N.C. 179; Smith v. Headrick, 93 N.C. 212;Shaffer v. Gaynor, 117 N.C. 20; Yow v. Hamilton, 136 N.C. 359.

Harris v. . Powell, 3 N.C. 349 (N.C. Ct. App. 1805).

Pincite

3 N.C. 349 (Harris v. . Powell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related