Carter v. Graves
| Decision Date | 31 December 1826 |
| Citation | 12 N.C. 74 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | SARAH B. CARTER v. SOLOMON GRAVES. |
A deed produced under a subpœna duces tecum was left after the trial among the papers in the office: Held, that it was subject to the control of the party producing it, and where the court below ordered the deed to be delivered up by the clerk. Held further, that the opposite party in the cause could not appeal from such order.
A DEED from Solomon Graves to Sarah B. Carter having been produced on the trial of a former suit between these parties, under a subpœna duces tecum, directed to the agent of Sarah B. Carter, and having been left among the papers ofthat cause, the clerk, under the instruction of Solomon Graves' counsel, refusing to deliver it up, Mrs. Carter applied for permission to withdraw it from the office. By the direction of the presiding judge, notice of this application was given to the counsel of Graves. The application was opposed, and on the argument the statement made in the cause heretofore tried between these parties, as reported in 9 N. C., 576, was read and formed a part of this case.
His Honor, Judge Daniel, directed the deed to be delivered up to the applicant, whereupon Solomon Graves appealed.
It appears that the deed in question was executed by the defendant to the plaintiff; that it was not in the possession or under the control of the defendant, but in the possession of the plaintiff's agent. It was for this reason that the defendant secured a subpoena duces tecum to be served on the agent, to have the benefit of the deed on the trial of the suit set forth in this case; that when the deed was brought to court, and after the trial of that suit it fell into the hands of the clerk of the court, who was cautioned by the defendant's counsel not to let it be taken out of the office. It is to regain possession of the deed that this application is made.
It is to be observed that the deed was private property, and the defendant had no greater right to it after the trial than he had before; the law interposed so far only as to give him a right to use it as evidence in the trial of the suit; and the law would not be true to itself if, after the purpose was answered for which it dispossessed the plaintiff of the deed, it did not.
place her in statu quo by redelivering it to her; neither a right to the deed nor rights claimed under it were intended to be disturbed by its production on the trial of that suit.
It would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Click v. Sample
...no actual controversy now between the parties and no rights to adjust by this appeal, this court should not take cognizance of this cause. 12 N.C. 74; 9 Wall. 602; 126 86, s. c. 35 S. E.; 125 N.C. 437, s. c. 34 S.E. 538; 7 Pa. S.Ct. 474; 26 S.W. 1116; 156 U.S. 651; 62 Ga. 747; 2 Cent. Dig. ......
-
Vaughan v. Broadfoot, 196
...§ 2200 (McNaughton rev. 1961); 58 Am.Jur., Witnesses § 20 (1948); Annot., Subpoena Duces Tecum, 128 Am.St.Rep. 755 (1909). See Carter v. Graves, 12 N.C. 74. A court in which an action is pending has the inherent power (frequently confirmed by statute) to issue a subpoena Duces tecum to any ......
- Farrar v. Alston
-
State v. Smithmeyer
...quo warranto against the Anthony Wholesale Grocery Company and others, and in the action against A. H. Gufler in Lyon county. In Carter v. Graves, 12 N.C. 74, 75, the court "It is to be observed that the deed was private property, and the defendant had no greater right to it after the trial......