Spencer v. . Saunders

126 S.E. 420, 189 N.C. 183, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 272
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 18, 1925
StatusPublished

This text of 126 S.E. 420 (Spencer v. . Saunders) 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
Spencer v. . Saunders, 126 S.E. 420, 189 N.C. 183, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 272 (N.C. 1925).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Every register of deeds who, knowingly or without reasonable inquiry, issues a license for the marriage of any two persons to which there is any lawful impediment, or where either of the persons is under the age of 18 years, without the consent required by law, shall forfeit and pay two hundred dollars to any parent, guardian or other person standing in loco parentis who sues for the same. C. S., 2503.

Eeasonable inquiry, within the meaning and intent of this statute, is a question of law for the court, upon facts admitted or found by the jury. If the facts are admitted, it is the duty of the court to instruct the jury whether they are sufficient to constitute reasonable inquiry;' if they are in controversy, it is the duty of the court to instruct the jury that certain facts to be determined from the evidence do or 'do not constitute reasonable inquiry. Gray v. Lentz, 173 N. C., 346; Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 159 N. C., 265.

*185 After adopting tbe plaintiff’s prayer, tbe trial court gave an additional instruction, wbicb submitted to tbe jury as an issuable fact tbe legal question involved in tbe statutory requirement. In other words, tbe jury were permitted to exercise tbeir judgment -as to wbetber tbe defendant’s inquiry was reasonable without any legal standard for determining wbetber tbeir finding did or did not disclose reasonable inquiry within tbe meaning of tbe statute. They may have concluded, tbe inquiry was reasonable upon a finding of facts wbicb was altogether insufficient in law for that purpose.

There was error in the instruction, wbicb entitles tbe plaintiff to a

New trial.

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

Related

Gray v. . Lentz
91 S.E. 1024 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)
Wilkinson v. . Wilkinson
74 S.E. 740 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 S.E. 420, 189 N.C. 183, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spencer-v-saunders-nc-1925.