Hunter v. . McAuslan

Superior Court of North Carolina

Hunter v. . McAuslan

3 N.C. 366

DecidedJuly 5, 1805

StatusPublished

This text of 3 N.C. 366 (Hunter v. . McAuslan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior 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

Hunter v. . McAuslan, 3 N.C. 366 (N.C. Ct. App. 1805).

Pincite

Opinion

Had it not been for the bankruptcy, he would not be a good witness; because, by defeating Hunter, he prevented a suit against himself, and retained in his hands what McAuslan paid him, and because McAuslan, being originally liable either to Gibbs or Hunter, must remain so to Gibbs if Hunter fails in this action; for then no other person can claim but Gibbs. But Gibbs having obtained his certificate, and all his estate having been exhausted in paying the debts due from the United States, and there being no fund in the hands of the assignees to be diminished by McAuslan's suit against them, it seems to me there should be a new trial, that this part of the case may be better considered, and that it may be so carefully determined as to give satisfaction to the parties concerned. (368)

A new trial ordered.

NOTE. — See Harrison v. Harrison, ante, 355; Farrell v. Perry,2 N.C. 2, and the note thereto. *Page 324

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

Had it not been for the bankruptcy, he would not be a good witness; because, by defeating Hunter, he prevented a suit against himself, and retained in his hands what McAuslan paid him, and because McAuslan, being originally liable either to Gibbs or Hunter, must remain so to Gibbs if Hunter fails in this action; for then no other person can claim but Gibbs. But Gibbs having obtained his certificate, and all his estate having been exhausted in paying the debts due from the United States, and there being no fund in the hands of the assignees to be diminished by McAuslan's suit against them, it seems to me there should be a new trial, that this part of the case may be better considered, and that it may be so carefully determined as to give satisfaction to the parties concerned. (368)

A new trial ordered.

NOTE. — See Harrison v. Harrison, ante, 355; Farrell v. Perry,2 N.C. 2, and the note thereto. *Page 324

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 N.C. 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-v-mcauslan-ncsuperct-1805.