Kearns v. . Huff

132 S.E. 566, 191 N.C. 593, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 130
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided April 14, 1926·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

C. S., 573 and subsection 3, are as follows: “Where the parties do not consent, the court may, upon the application, or of its own motion, direct a reference in the following cases: (3) Where the case involves a complicated question of boundary, or one which requires a personal view of the premises.”

There is nothing in the facts of record “which requires a personal view of the premises.”

The plaintiffs have the right to have the owners, or lessees, or occupants of the premises mentioned in their complaint as witnesses who can testify to a jury the same side of the street and in the same locality the buildings are on and the size, frontage, number of stories, and the amount of the rent that was being paid on 1 March, 1925.

The power of the court below to order a view by the jury is set forth in S. v. Stewart, 189 N. C., p. 345.

The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.

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

Kearns v. . Huff, 132 S.E. 566, 191 N.C. 593, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 130 (N.C. 1926).

132 S.E. 566 (Kearns v. . Huff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dayton v. . Asheville
115 S.E. 827 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)