Reeves v. . Adams

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Reeves v. . Adams

17 N.C. 192

DecidedDecember 5, 1831

StatusPublished

This text of 17 N.C. 192 (Reeves v. . Adams) 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

Reeves v. . Adams, 17 N.C. 192 (N.C. 1831).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Hard, Judge.

-It appears to be a general rule, that .a person who is merely a witness shall-not be made a party defendant $ because having no interest in the cause, *193 no decree can be made against him,-and because the party may have the full benefit of his testimony, by examining him as a witness. (Plummer v. May, 1 Ves. sen. 426. Fenton v. Hughes, 7 Ves. 287. McNamara v. Williams, 6 Ves. 143).

But to this rule there appear to be some exceptions* Arbitrators have been suffered to be made defendants. (Lingood v. Croucher, 2 Atk. 396. Chicot v. Lequesne, 2 Ves. sen. 315). Clerks of corporations may also be made defendants, for the sake of discoveries, because the answers of corporations are not upon oath, and are therefore not evidence. (Wyche v. Meal, 3 P. Wms. 310. Moodalay v. Morton, 1 Br. C. R. 469. Dummer v. Chipenham, 14 Ves. 251). And Lord Redesdale has decided, that a solicitor, assisting his client in obtaining a fraudulent release, was properly made defendant, and liable for costs, if the principal was insolvent. ( Bowles v. Stewart, 1 Sch. & Lef. 227).

In the present case, the defendant Blackwood appears to have no interest in the cause, and no decree can be entered against" him. It was therefore unnecessary .to make him a party. The plaintiff might have had the benefit of his testimony, without doing so. For these reasons, I am of opinion that he should be allowed his .costs.

Per Curiam. — Dismiss the bill as to Blackwood with costs.

*195 EQUITY CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OE DECEMBER TERM, 1832.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Hard, Judge.

-It appears to be a general rule, that .a person who is merely a witness shall-not be made a party defendant $ because having no interest in the cause, *193 no decree can be made against him,-and because the party may have the full benefit of his testimony, by examining him as a witness. (Plummer v. May, 1 Ves. sen. 426. Fenton v. Hughes, 7 Ves. 287. McNamara v. Williams, 6 Ves. 143).

But to this rule there appear to be some exceptions* Arbitrators have been suffered to be made defendants. (Lingood v. Croucher, 2 Atk. 396. Chicot v. Lequesne, 2 Ves. sen. 315). Clerks of corporations may also be made defendants, for the sake of discoveries, because the answers of corporations are not upon oath, and are therefore not evidence. (Wyche v. Meal, 3 P. Wms. 310. Moodalay v. Morton, 1 Br. C. R. 469. Dummer v. Chipenham, 14 Ves. 251). And Lord Redesdale has decided, that a solicitor, assisting his client in obtaining a fraudulent release, was properly made defendant, and liable for costs, if the principal was insolvent. ( Bowles v. Stewart, 1 Sch. & Lef. 227).

In the present case, the defendant Blackwood appears to have no interest in the cause, and no decree can be entered against" him. It was therefore unnecessary .to make him a party. The plaintiff might have had the benefit of his testimony, without doing so. For these reasons, I am of opinion that he should be allowed his .costs.

Per Curiam. — Dismiss the bill as to Blackwood with costs.

*195 EQUITY CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OE DECEMBER TERM, 1832.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 N.C. 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reeves-v-adams-nc-1831.