Huffman v. Barkley

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Huffman v. Barkley

17 S.C.L. 34

DecidedMay 15, 1828

StatusPublished

This text of 17 S.C.L. 34 (Huffman v. Barkley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Huffman v. Barkley, 17 S.C.L. 34 (N.C. Ct. App. 1828).

Pincite

Opinion

Nott, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Court, in this case, concur in opinion with the presiding Judge. In the case of English v. English, 2 McCord, 238, it was held, that the testimony of a President of the Branch Bank could not be taken by commission. But that was on the ground that his duties were not of such a nature as to prevent his personal attendance at Court. It is indeed said, in that case, that “ n@ witness residing in the State could be examined de bene esse, by the Common Law.” But that was laying down the proposition in terms rather too broad. Our Courts were always in the habit of examining, de bene esse, aged and infirm persons, and others whose public duties necessarily prevented their personal attendance as witnesses. Attorneys being officers of Court, have always been considered as coming within the rule, where the Courts were sitting at the same time.

Motion refused.

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

Nott, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Court, in this case, concur in opinion with the presiding Judge. In the case of English v. English, 2 McCord, 238, it was held, that the testimony of a President of the Branch Bank could not be taken by commission. But that was on the ground that his duties were not of such a nature as to prevent his personal attendance at Court. It is indeed said, in that case, that “ n@ witness residing in the State could be examined de bene esse, by the Common Law.” But that was laying down the proposition in terms rather too broad. Our Courts were always in the habit of examining, de bene esse, aged and infirm persons, and others whose public duties necessarily prevented their personal attendance as witnesses. Attorneys being officers of Court, have always been considered as coming within the rule, where the Courts were sitting at the same time.

Motion refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 S.C.L. 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huffman-v-barkley-ncctapp-1828.