Parker v. . Flora

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Parker v. . Flora

63 N.C. 474

DecidedJune 5, 1869

StatusPublished

This text of 63 N.C. 474 (Parker v. . Flora) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme 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

Parker v. . Flora, 63 N.C. 474 (N.C. 1869).

Pincite

Opinion

Settle, J.

The question presented by the pleadings does not admit of an argument. We observe that the case was tried before the decisions of the last term of this Court were published,

. and we presume that the counsel for the defendant was of the opinion that the Code of Civil Procedure applied to this suit, and that defences might be introduced as counter-claims, which had heretofore been excluded. We do not intimate that the defence here attempted to be set up, would avail under the provisions of the Code; we only say that it certainly could not be entertained in the present.suit. There is no allegation of fraud in the factum, and the bond was “assigned to the plaintiff for full consideration and without notice of the claim of defendant; and we are to take it that it was assigned before it fell due.

The evidence in regard to the consideration of the bond was properly rejected by His Honor.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

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

Settle, J.

The question presented by the pleadings does not admit of an argument. We observe that the case was tried before the decisions of the last term of this Court were published,

. and we presume that the counsel for the defendant was of the opinion that the Code of Civil Procedure applied to this suit, and that defences might be introduced as counter-claims, which had heretofore been excluded. We do not intimate that the defence here attempted to be set up, would avail under the provisions of the Code; we only say that it certainly could not be entertained in the present.suit. There is no allegation of fraud in the factum, and the bond was “assigned to the plaintiff for full consideration and without notice of the claim of defendant; and we are to take it that it was assigned before it fell due.

The evidence in regard to the consideration of the bond was properly rejected by His Honor.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 N.C. 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-flora-nc-1869.