McComb & Wallace v. N. C. Railroad

70 N.C. 178
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided January 15, 1874·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Reade, J.

What an agent says or does within the scope of his agency, and while engaged in the very business, is evidence for or against his principal as part of the res gestee.

But evidence of his declarations, made subsequently, as to what he had done, is inadmissible. It is only hearsay. And this although he may continue to act as agent in other matters, or generally. Smith Melton v. N. C. R. R. Co., 68 N. C. Rep. 107. That is decisive of this case.

If the plaintiff left the cotton on storage with the defendant, [181] and the defendant failed to deliver it on, demand, he is prima facie liable. If it was lost or destroyed, then the question of negligence arises. Rut that is not now before ns.

There is error.

Pee Cubiam. Venire de nmo.

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

McComb & Wallace v. N. C. Railroad, 70 N.C. 178 (N.C. 1874).

70 N.C. 178 (McComb & Wallace v. N. C. Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Staley v. Royal Pines Park, Inc.
162 S.E. 202 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
Black v. . Baylees
86 N.C. 527 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1882)
Henry v. . Willard
73 N.C. 35 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1875)