State Ex Rel . Tidline v. . Hickerson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State Ex Rel . Tidline v. . Hickerson

72 N.C. 421

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 5, 1875

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 72 N.C. 421 (State Ex Rel . Tidline v. . Hickerson) 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

State Ex Rel . Tidline v. . Hickerson, 72 N.C. 421 (N.C. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

*422 Rodman, J.

"We are not informed by the record for what reason his Honor rejected the deposition offered in evidence by the defendant. It is said here it was because he considered the proceeding a criminal one, in which depositions are not admitted. That a proceeding in bastardy in a civil action is settled by the cases of State v. Pate, 1 Busb. 244, and State v. McIntosh, 64 N. C., 607. The deposition was admissible.

Pee CuRIAm. Judgment below reversed and venire de novo. Let this opinion be certified.

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

*422 Rodman, J.

"We are not informed by the record for what reason his Honor rejected the deposition offered in evidence by the defendant. It is said here it was because he considered the proceeding a criminal one, in which depositions are not admitted. That a proceeding in bastardy in a civil action is settled by the cases of State v. Pate, 1 Busb. 244, and State v. McIntosh, 64 N. C., 607. The deposition was admissible.

Pee CuRIAm. Judgment below reversed and venire de novo. Let this opinion be certified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 N.C. 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-tidline-v-hickerson-nc-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack