Ray v. . Marriner

3 N.C. 385
CourtSuperior Court of North Carolina
DecidedApril 5, 1806
StatusPublished

This text of 3 N.C. 385 (Ray v. . Marriner) 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
Ray v. . Marriner, 3 N.C. 385 (N.C. Ct. App. 1806).

Opinions

This will being proved, cannot be given in evidence but by an attested copy, not by a sworn copy; not because an attested copy cannot be dispensed with where a sworn copy can be proved, but because, in the case of a will, the probate is the only regular proof.

The defendants offered a witness, to whom it was objected by plaintiff's counsel that he was interested, and that they would prove the interest. Upon inquiry, however, the witness to prove the interest was absent. They then proposed to examine him on the voir dire; and it was said by the plaintiffs they could not now examine upon the voir dire. *Page 338

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

Related

Den Ex Dem. Sasser v. Herring
14 N.C. 340 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1832)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 N.C. 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-v-marriner-ncsuperct-1806.