Mitchell v. . Clarke
Opinion
Motion by Iredell for plaintiff to prove work and labor done, not by the plaintiff himself, but by negroes which he employed: and goods, etc., sold and delivered for the use of the defendant, by sundry persons and paid for by the plaintiff, under the book debt act.* (30)
Objected by Mr. Attorney-General Moore, that this is neither within the spirit nor letter of the act, because the work was not done by the plaintiff himself, etc.
But, on a long time taken up in discussing the subject, the Court overruled the objection, and admitted the plaintiff to swear.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 N.C. 29 (Mitchell v. . Clarke) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.