Vaughan v. . Raleigh and Gaston R. R. Company

63 N.C. 11
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided June 5, 1868·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Reade, J.

As bearing upon the question whether the Rail Road had received the cotton for transportation as a common carrier, and as confirmatory of the statement of the Agent that it had not, the defendant offered to ask the Agent whether it was not the custom to weigh and mark goods as they were taken for transportation, the goods in question not having been weighed and marked. The evidence as to the *13 custom was ruled out. In. tbis there was error; and for this error there must be a venire de novo.

The learning upon the question will be found in the authorities cited at the bar. See especially Price v. Earl of Torrington, 1 Salk., 285, (1 Sm. L. C., [390.])

Per Curiam. Venire de novo.

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

Vaughan v. . Raleigh and Gaston R. R. Company, 63 N.C. 11 (N.C. 1868).

63 N.C. 11 (Vaughan v. . Raleigh and Gaston R. R. Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Eisentrager v. Great Northern Railway Co.
178 Iowa 713 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1916)
Fourth National Bank v. Wilson
84 S.E. 866 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1915)
Riddick v. . Dunn
58 S.E. 439 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1907)
Harbison v. . Hall
32 S.E. 964 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1899)
Brown Chemical Co. v. Atkinson, Cobb & Co.
91 N.C. 389 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1884)
Norris v. . Fowler
87 N.C. 9 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1882)
Bank of Statesville v. L. Pinkers & Co.
83 N.C. 377 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1880)