State v. . Gherkin

29 N.C. 206
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided June 5, 1847·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Daniel, J,

A subscribing witness is not material to the due making of a bond. The putting of the name of Stubbs to the instrument, as a subscribing witness, did not vitiate the bond, after it was subsequently delivered by the obligors to the obligee. The bond could have been established (if denied by the obligors) by proof of their hand-writing. Blackwell v. Lane, 4 Dev. & Bat. 113. It was not an alteration In a material part of a true document, by which the obligee was or could be defrauded of the money mentioned in the face of the bond. We think the judgment was right.

Tee. Cukiaiu-Judgment affirmed.

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

State v. . Gherkin, 29 N.C. 206 (N.C. 1847).

29 N.C. 206 (State v. . Gherkin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Brown
176 S.E.2d 881 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1970)