Mushrow & Co. v. Graham

Superior Court of North Carolina

Mushrow & Co. v. Graham

2 N.C. 414

DecidedSeptember 15, 1796

StatusPublished

This text of 2 N.C. 414 (Mushrow & Co. v. Graham) 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

Mushrow & Co. v. Graham, 2 N.C. 414 (N.C. Ct. App. 1796).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam

It is the common practice to receive, the depositions of all such public officers, the duties of whose offices oblige them to attend at a particular place for the discharge thereof. Let the deposition he read. He proved the execution of the bond by Graham, but did not say that Graham, the Defendant in this action, was the person who executed it.

Per curiam — You may identify the Defendant by proof of his hand-writing. The Plaintiff then proved the handwriting in which the obligor’s name was subscribed, to be (he hand-writing of Graham the Defendant, and he had a verdict and judgment.

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

Per curiam

It is the common practice to receive, the depositions of all such public officers, the duties of whose offices oblige them to attend at a particular place for the discharge thereof. Let the deposition he read. He proved the execution of the bond by Graham, but did not say that Graham, the Defendant in this action, was the person who executed it.

Per curiam — You may identify the Defendant by proof of his hand-writing. The Plaintiff then proved the handwriting in which the obligor’s name was subscribed, to be (he hand-writing of Graham the Defendant, and he had a verdict and judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 N.C. 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mushrow-co-v-graham-ncsuperct-1796.