Pendleton v. . Spencer

170 S.E. 637, 205 N.C. 179, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 495
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided September 20, 1933·Published

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The testimony of J". A. Spencer was properly excluded as the consideration for the note was not in issue.

Therefore, the applicability or nonapplicability of C. S., 1795, to the proffered testimony is not necessarily presented by the record. Its competency is urged under authority of Sutton v. Walters, 118 N. C., 495, 24 S. E., 357. Its incompetency is asserted under authority of Benedict v. Jones, 129 N. C., 475, 40 S. E., 223. The point is moot as the testimony was properly excluded on other grounds.

No error.

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

Pendleton v. . Spencer, 170 S.E. 637, 205 N.C. 179, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 495 (N.C. 1933).

170 S.E. 637 (Pendleton v. . Spencer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Benedict v. Jones.
40 S.E. 223 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1901)
Sutton v. . Walters
24 S.E. 357 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1896)