In Re Bailey

Supreme Court of North Carolina

In Re Bailey

103 S.E. 896, 180 N.C. 30, 1920 N.C. LEXIS 11

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 15, 1920

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 103 S.E. 896 (In Re Bailey) 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

In Re Bailey, 103 S.E. 896, 180 N.C. 30, 1920 N.C. LEXIS 11 (N.C. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Ciase, C. J.

Tbere^ were no assignments of error filed by Cora Wilson, as required by rules 19 (2) and 21, 174 N. C., 832, 833; Lee v. Baird, 146 N. C., 361, and numerous cases since. Also, there was no brief filed for her, in tbe time required by rule 34, and tbe motion by appellee to affirm tbe judgment as to her is allowed.

In tbe appeal of William Bailey, tbe first assignment of error is tbe admission of tbe declarations to tbe witness Woodruff by Ellen Bailey that tbe paper-writing of 26 March, 1914, was a forgery, and she bad never signed tbe same. It purported to be executed by making her mark, and this declaration was competent to rebut tbe evidence offered by William Bailey in its support. In re Wellborn, 165 N. C., 641; In re Shelton, 143 N. C., 220; Reel v. Reel, 8 N. C., 248.

Tbe second assignment of error that tbe court allowed Cora Wilson to introduce as evidence sundry letters of Ellen Bailey cannot be sustained, for tbe record does not disclose tbe contents of tbe letters.

Tbe third assignment of error is to tbe charge that if tbe jury find that both paper-writings were legally and properly executed by Ellen Bailey; that tbe paper-writing propounded by Cora Wilson was tbe last will and testament of Ellen Bailey, because it was of later date than that propounded by William Bailey, has no foundation, because tbe jury found that both were forgeries.

Tbe fourth assignment of error, that tbe court refused to set aside tbe verdict when requested to do so by all parties at that time, cannot be sustained. In Kenny v. R. R., 165 N. C., 104, tbe Court held that the. parties have a right before trial to settle their differences by agreement and compromise, but, after tbe return of tbe verdict, tbe court, in its discretion, may refuse, to try tbe case over again although tbe parties consent for a new trial, for courts of justice cannot be turned into moot courts.

No error.

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

Ciase, C. J.

Tbere^ were no assignments of error filed by Cora Wilson, as required by rules 19 (2) and 21, 174 N. C., 832, 833; Lee v. Baird, 146 N. C., 361, and numerous cases since. Also, there was no brief filed for her, in tbe time required by rule 34, and tbe motion by appellee to affirm tbe judgment as to her is allowed.

In tbe appeal of William Bailey, tbe first assignment of error is tbe admission of tbe declarations to tbe witness Woodruff by Ellen Bailey that tbe paper-writing of 26 March, 1914, was a forgery, and she bad never signed tbe same. It purported to be executed by making her mark, and this declaration was competent to rebut tbe evidence offered by William Bailey in its support. In re Wellborn, 165 N. C., 641; In re Shelton, 143 N. C., 220; Reel v. Reel, 8 N. C., 248.

Tbe second assignment of error that tbe court allowed Cora Wilson to introduce as evidence sundry letters of Ellen Bailey cannot be sustained, for tbe record does not disclose tbe contents of tbe letters.

Tbe third assignment of error is to tbe charge that if tbe jury find that both paper-writings were legally and properly executed by Ellen Bailey; that tbe paper-writing propounded by Cora Wilson was tbe last will and testament of Ellen Bailey, because it was of later date than that propounded by William Bailey, has no foundation, because tbe jury found that both were forgeries.

Tbe fourth assignment of error, that tbe court refused to set aside tbe verdict when requested to do so by all parties at that time, cannot be sustained. In Kenny v. R. R., 165 N. C., 104, tbe Court held that the. parties have a right before trial to settle their differences by agreement and compromise, but, after tbe return of tbe verdict, tbe court, in its discretion, may refuse, to try tbe case over again although tbe parties consent for a new trial, for courts of justice cannot be turned into moot courts.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 S.E. 896, 180 N.C. 30, 1920 N.C. LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-bailey-nc-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack