Harris v. . Yarborough

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Harris v. . Yarborough

15 N.C. 166

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 5, 1833

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 15 N.C. 166 (Harris v. . Yarborough) 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. . Yarborough, 15 N.C. 166 (N.C. 1833).

Pincite

Opinion

GastoN, Judge.

The court is of opinion that the Judge erred in permitting the deposition to be read. It holds that when the notice for taking a deposition, names the hours of the day within which it is appointed to be taken, it is not enough that the deposition shall appear to have been taken on that day, but that it must also appear to have been taken within the prescribed hours.— Such the court believes to have been the general practice, and this practice it holds to be most consistent with principle. It is necessary that the time and place of taking the deposition, shall conform to the time and place when and where the opposite party is notified to attend. Depositions are often taken ex parte, and it is dangerous to relax any of those rules which have been provided for taking them fairly. But notwithstanding this error, the court is of opinion that the judgment below must be affirmed. The cases of McRea v. Houston Watford v. Pitt (3 Murph. 429 and 468) Jiaveconclusively *168 established that under the act of 1784, (Rev. c. 225) parol gifts of slaves are void as against creditors and purchasers.

Per Curiam — Judgment aepirmed. '

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

GastoN, Judge.

The court is of opinion that the Judge erred in permitting the deposition to be read. It holds that when the notice for taking a deposition, names the hours of the day within which it is appointed to be taken, it is not enough that the deposition shall appear to have been taken on that day, but that it must also appear to have been taken within the prescribed hours.— Such the court believes to have been the general practice, and this practice it holds to be most consistent with principle. It is necessary that the time and place of taking the deposition, shall conform to the time and place when and where the opposite party is notified to attend. Depositions are often taken ex parte, and it is dangerous to relax any of those rules which have been provided for taking them fairly. But notwithstanding this error, the court is of opinion that the judgment below must be affirmed. The cases of McRea v. Houston Watford v. Pitt (3 Murph. 429 and 468) Jiaveconclusively *168 established that under the act of 1784, (Rev. c. 225) parol gifts of slaves are void as against creditors and purchasers.

Per Curiam — Judgment aepirmed. '

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 N.C. 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-yarborough-nc-1833.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack