Regan v. . Regan

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Regan v. . Regan

72 N.C. 195

DecidedJanuary 5, 1875

StatusPublished

This text of 72 N.C. 195 (Regan v. . Regan) 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

Regan v. . Regan, 72 N.C. 195 (N.C. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

ByNUM, J.

The plaintiff declared for the use and occupation of 6,866 turpentine boxes, which he owned and which were worked by the defendant, for the year 1872. The defendant, among-other defences, set up as a counter-claim, a note for $400, due to him from the plaintiff. The plaintiff replied a discharge in bankruptcy.

On the trial, the plaintiff was introduced as a witness in his own behalf, and under objection by the defendant, was allowed by the Court to testify, that he was discharged in bankruptcy_

*196 The best evidence of the discharge was the certificate of discharge, and that the plaintiff was bound to produce in evidence, or show sufficient excuse for its non-prodnction, before the parol or inferior evidence could be admitted. This principle of evidence is too plain to require the citation of authority to support it.

It is unnecessary to notice the other exceptions assigned as errors.

Pee Curiam. Venire de novo.

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

ByNUM, J.

The plaintiff declared for the use and occupation of 6,866 turpentine boxes, which he owned and which were worked by the defendant, for the year 1872. The defendant, among-other defences, set up as a counter-claim, a note for $400, due to him from the plaintiff. The plaintiff replied a discharge in bankruptcy.

On the trial, the plaintiff was introduced as a witness in his own behalf, and under objection by the defendant, was allowed by the Court to testify, that he was discharged in bankruptcy_

*196 The best evidence of the discharge was the certificate of discharge, and that the plaintiff was bound to produce in evidence, or show sufficient excuse for its non-prodnction, before the parol or inferior evidence could be admitted. This principle of evidence is too plain to require the citation of authority to support it.

It is unnecessary to notice the other exceptions assigned as errors.

Pee Curiam. Venire de novo.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 N.C. 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/regan-v-regan-nc-1875.