Spruill v. . Hopkins

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Spruill v. . Hopkins

78 S.E. 1040, 162 N.C. 526, 1913 N.C. LEXIS 389

DecidedMay 28, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 78 S.E. 1040 (Spruill v. . Hopkins) 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

Spruill v. . Hopkins, 78 S.E. 1040, 162 N.C. 526, 1913 N.C. LEXIS 389 (N.C. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Per CukiaM.

The evidence of the witness Nooney was very important on the issue before the jury, and was clearly hearsay and incompetent.

It is not brought within the rule admitting the declarations of a deceased witness, as the declarant is living; nor does it appear that either party claims under him, or that he was more than an agent in possession of the Belgrade and Holly Grove lands. Cansler v. Fite, 50 N. C., 426; Lawrence v. Hyman, 79 N. C., 211; Perkins v. Brinkley, 133 N. C., 350.

The evidence also fails to show that Mr. Pettigrew had any knowledge of the boundaries, or that he was doing more than expressing an opinion that the land in dispute was a part of the Clayton tract.

There must be a

New trial.

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