White v. . Beaman

Supreme Court of North Carolina

White v. . Beaman

85 N.C. 3

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 5, 1881

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 85 N.C. 3 (White v. . Beaman) 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

White v. . Beaman, 85 N.C. 3 (N.C. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, C. J.,

after stating the case. The defendants were *5 in our opinion entitled to the instruction asked, that there was no evidence upon which the jury could find the credit entered before the presumption, and thus render it competent proof of actual part payment then made, and there was error in refusing it. The law governing the case is well settled in this state by the adjudications in Williams v. Alexander, 6 Jones, 137, and Woodhouse v. Simmons, 73 N. C., 30, cited in the argument for the plaintiffs, and in Grant v. Burgwyn, 84 N. C., 560.

It is equally well settled that it is controlled by the former statute of limitations and is not affected by any provisions of the new. C. C. P., § 16. Johnson v. Parker, 79 N. C., 475; Blue v. Gilchrist, 84 N. C., 239, and numerous references in the notes to section 16 in Tourgee’s Code and his Statutory Adjudications.

There is error and must be a new trial, and it is so ordered. Let this be certified.

Error.. Venire de novo,

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

Smith, C. J.,

after stating the case. The defendants were *5 in our opinion entitled to the instruction asked, that there was no evidence upon which the jury could find the credit entered before the presumption, and thus render it competent proof of actual part payment then made, and there was error in refusing it. The law governing the case is well settled in this state by the adjudications in Williams v. Alexander, 6 Jones, 137, and Woodhouse v. Simmons, 73 N. C., 30, cited in the argument for the plaintiffs, and in Grant v. Burgwyn, 84 N. C., 560.

It is equally well settled that it is controlled by the former statute of limitations and is not affected by any provisions of the new. C. C. P., § 16. Johnson v. Parker, 79 N. C., 475; Blue v. Gilchrist, 84 N. C., 239, and numerous references in the notes to section 16 in Tourgee’s Code and his Statutory Adjudications.

There is error and must be a new trial, and it is so ordered. Let this be certified.

Error.. Venire de novo,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 N.C. 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-beaman-nc-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack