Williams v. . Thomas
This text of 78 N.C. 47 (Williams v. . Thomas) 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.
Opinion
Does the reference of an action by consent to the attorney in said action for arbitration ipso facto revoke his authority as an attorney? This is an interesting, and in the present case, an important question. We were about to proceed to consider the question, but finding that we arc compelled to order another trial, on another exception,-and inasmuch as His Honor submitted-the question to the jury as one of intent, without a distinct issue, we have concluded not to pass upon' it at present
Was it a question of law or of fact?.- This of course depends on the evidence; and if the latter, was there any- évi-dence of the intent to go to the jury? We-make these suggestions, but do.not-mean any expression of opinion until the facts are established by another .trial. ■ . i ■
*49 His Honor banded important papers to the jury as they retired, which had been read in evidence, to which the? plaintiff's objected, but the jury were allowed to keep the-papers until the verdict was rendered. Whilst the decisions1, in different States of the Union- do not agree on this subject,, the practice has never been recognized in this State, and the rule against it has been uniform, unless by consent. See the following cases for the reasons on the subject: Outlaw v. Hurdle, 1 Jones 150; Watson v. Davis, 7 Jones 178; Burton v. Wilkes, 66 N. C. 604.
Error.
Per Curiam. Judgment reversed..
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
78 N.C. 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-thomas-nc-1878.