Rutherford v. . Nelson

Superior Court of North Carolina

Rutherford v. . Nelson

2 N.C. 105

DecidedSeptember 5, 1794

StatusPublished

This text of 2 N.C. 105 (Rutherford v. . Nelson) 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

Rutherford v. . Nelson, 2 N.C. 105 (N.C. Ct. App. 1794).

Pincite

Opinion

It has been usual to read depositions where it appears they have been read in the court below; though perhaps this rule might not be a proper one in case the party opposing the reading could show an irregularity to the Court here. But he does not show it in the present instance; he only alleges the deposition was not signed by the deponent. But we have already decided (Murphy v. *Page 80 (106) Work, ante, 105) that the want of the deponent's signature is not sufficient to prevent the reading his deposition, if it be certified by the justice or commissioner to have been sworn to; for we must give credit to this certificate so far as to believe that the party was sworn. So the deposition was read.

Cited: Boggs v. Mining Co., 162 N.C. 394.

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

It has been usual to read depositions where it appears they have been read in the court below; though perhaps this rule might not be a proper one in case the party opposing the reading could show an irregularity to the Court here. But he does not show it in the present instance; he only alleges the deposition was not signed by the deponent. But we have already decided (Murphy v. *Page 80 (106) Work, ante, 105) that the want of the deponent's signature is not sufficient to prevent the reading his deposition, if it be certified by the justice or commissioner to have been sworn to; for we must give credit to this certificate so far as to believe that the party was sworn. So the deposition was read.

Cited: Boggs v. Mining Co., 162 N.C. 394.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 N.C. 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rutherford-v-nelson-ncsuperct-1794.