Hatton v. . Dew

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Hatton v. . Dew

4 N.C. 137

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 5, 1814

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 N.C. 137 (Hatton v. . Dew) 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

Hatton v. . Dew, 4 N.C. 137 (N.C. 1814).

Pincite

Opinion

Owing to the imperfect statement of facts contained in the transcript sent up from the court below, the Court is unable to decide satisfactorily to themselves the several points reserved in the statement.

Therefore, let a new trial be granted.

NOTE. — See Gilkey v. Dickerson, 9 N.C. 341; Banner v. McMurray,11 N.C. 93; S. v. Upton, 12 N.C. 268. So if a point be reserved by the court which does not appear on the transcript, Finch v. Elliott, 11 N.C. 61. So if it appear from the certificate of the Judge that a case was intended to be made up by him, but none comes up with the transcript.Hamilton v. McCulloch, 9 N.C. 29; Anderson v. Hunt, 10 N.C. 244;S. v. Powers, ibid., 376. But see Pickett v. Pickett, 14 N.C. 6;Atkinson v. Clark, ibid., 171; Thomas (138)v. Alexander, 19 N.C. 386, which declare that it is the settled rule of the Supreme Court to affirm every judgment not seen to be erroneous. See, also, S. v. Hardin, 19 N.C. 407; Brooks v. Ross, ibid., 484;Honeycutt v. Angel, 20 N.C. 306; Bronson v. Paynter, ibid., 393.

Cited: Dunett v. Barksdale, 13 N.C. 252.

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

Owing to the imperfect statement of facts contained in the transcript sent up from the court below, the Court is unable to decide satisfactorily to themselves the several points reserved in the statement.

Therefore, let a new trial be granted.

NOTE. — See Gilkey v. Dickerson, 9 N.C. 341; Banner v. McMurray,11 N.C. 93; S. v. Upton, 12 N.C. 268. So if a point be reserved by the court which does not appear on the transcript, Finch v. Elliott, 11 N.C. 61. So if it appear from the certificate of the Judge that a case was intended to be made up by him, but none comes up with the transcript.Hamilton v. McCulloch, 9 N.C. 29; Anderson v. Hunt, 10 N.C. 244;S. v. Powers, ibid., 376. But see Pickett v. Pickett, 14 N.C. 6;Atkinson v. Clark, ibid., 171; Thomas (138)v. Alexander, 19 N.C. 386, which declare that it is the settled rule of the Supreme Court to affirm every judgment not seen to be erroneous. See, also, S. v. Hardin, 19 N.C. 407; Brooks v. Ross, ibid., 484;Honeycutt v. Angel, 20 N.C. 306; Bronson v. Paynter, ibid., 393.

Cited: Dunett v. Barksdale, 13 N.C. 252.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 N.C. 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatton-v-dew-nc-1814.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack