Kirk v. . Barnhart

74 N.C. 653
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided January 5, 1876·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Rodman, J.

Mr. Bailey, for the plaintiff, moved to dismiss the appeal, because it did not appear, that .a case had been made out by the appellant and served on the plaintiff or his counsel, within five days after the entry of appeal taken, as required by C. C. P., sec. 301. It appeared, however, from the affidavit of Mr. Bai’ringer, that the case had been stated and served in due time on Mr. Bong, one of the attornies for the plaintiff, who resided in the county where the action was tried, and had been returned by him without objection, and filed with the clerk. The motion to dismiss ' the appeal is therefore refused. The motion of defendant for a certiorari is also refused.

The Judge clearly erred in receiving the plaintiff as a witness to prove the services rendered by her to the deceased. C. C. P., sec. 343.

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed and 'venire de novo.

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

Kirk v. . Barnhart, 74 N.C. 653 (N.C. 1876).

74 N.C. 653 (Kirk v. . Barnhart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Peek v. Shook
63 S.E.2d 542 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1951)
Price v. . Pyatt
167 S.E. 69 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
Dunn v. Currie.
53 S.E. 533 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1906)
Johnson v. . Rich
23 S.E. 1007 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1896)