Jones v. . Blount

2 N.C. 238
CourtSuperior Court of North Carolina
DecidedOctober 5, 1795
StatusPublished

This text of 2 N.C. 238 (Jones v. . Blount) 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
Jones v. . Blount, 2 N.C. 238 (N.C. Ct. App. 1795).

Opinion

It was objected by Mr. Hamilton for the plaintiff, that when the handwriting of a deceased witness cannot be proved, it is irregular to prove the handwriting of the obligor himself, that being not essential to the deed, and not amounting to any proof of the delivery of it. The law only requires the best evidence the party has in his power. The subscribing witness must be produced when there is one; if he be dead, proof of his handwriting may be admitted; and if the handwriting of the witness cannot be proven, then proof of the handwriting of the obligor may be received; this affording a strong evidence that the obligor meant to make himself chargeable by that signature. And the defendant in the present case was permitted to prove the handwriting of the obligor.

See Clements v. Eason, ante, 18.

Cited: McKinder v. Littlejohn, 23 N.C. 71; Carrier v. Hampton,33 N.C. 311; Howell v. Ray, 92 N.C. 512.

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

Related

Carrier v. . Hampton
33 N.C. 307 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1850)
Howell v. . Ray
92 N.C. 510 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 N.C. 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-blount-ncsuperct-1795.