Cowles v. Hayes
| Citation | 71 N.C. 230 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1874 |
| Parties | A. C. COWLES, Adm'r., v. P. HAYES and T. N. COOPER. |
Where a plaintiff declares for the value of property sold, as the consideration of a note given at an administrator's sale, it is competent for the witness proving the consideration, to refresh his memory from the account of sales kept by himself; and also to read the terms of the sale as they were read just before the sale commenced.
An administrator regularly appointed, succeeds to all the rights of a special administrator.
( Benton v. Wilkes, 66 N. C. Rep. 604; Cutlar v. Quince, 2, Hay, 60, cited and approved.)
CIVIL ACTION for the recovery of a note given at an administrator's sale, commenced in a Justice's Court, and carried by appeal to the Superior Court of IREDELL county, where it was tried at Spring Term, 1874, before his Honor, Judge Mitchell.
The case comes up upon certain exceptions to the evidence admitted on the trial below, of which the opinion of Justice BYNUM sufficiently sets forth the grounds.
There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Motion for a new trial; motion overruled. Appeal by defendants.
McCorkle & Bailey, for appellants .
Armfield, contra .
This was an action originally begun before a single Justice and by successive appeals brought to this Court upon exceptions to evidence and the charge of the Court upon the trial below.
The plaintiff, as administrator of James Howard, sued upon a note given by the defendants to one S. W. Little, who had been the special administrator of the same intestate and as such had taken the note for property sold. The note was given the 3d March, 1865, pending the late war, and under chap. 34, sec. 7, Bat. Rev., the plaintiff declared for the value of the property sold and for which the note was given??
Upon the trial many exceptions were taken by the defendants to the testimony admitted and rejected. As all of the exceptions have been repeatedly decided by this Court adversely to the defendants, it would be useless to enumerate them in detail. The plaintiff having declared for the value of goods sold, the Court properly held that to be the only enquiry for the jury and that the testimony introduced by the plaintiff was competent to that end.
The Court allowed the jury to copy a memorandum of articles sold and the prices thereof, made out by the plaintiff's counsel. This was objected to by the defendants. But the case states that this memorandum was but the copy of the account proved and admitted in evidence. It was, therefore, nothing more than a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miresso v. State
...129 Md. 17, 98 A. 235 (recognizing rule); Commonwealth v. Tucker (1905), 189 Mass. 457, 76 N.E. 127, 7 L.R.A. N.S. 1056; Cowles v. Hayes (1874), 71 N.C. 230; Corbin v. Cleveland (1944), 144 Ohio St. 32, 28 Ohio Ops. 562, 56 N.E.2d 214, 154 A.L.R. 874, aff'g 74 Ohio App. 199, 29 Ohio Ops. 33......
-
State v. Ward
...consumption of time. State v. Goldberg, 261 N.C. 181, 134 S.E.2d 334, cert. den. 377 U.S. 978, 84 S.Ct. 1884, 12 L.Ed.2d 747; Cowles v. Hayes, 71 N.C. 230; Annot. in 14 A.L.R.3d 831 Et seq. entitled 'Taking and Use of Trial Notes by Jury'; 89 C.J.S. Trial § 456; 23A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 13......
-
State v. Goldberg, 433
...of you who will not have these pads may work together in pairs of two, if you wish, and may list these cases, these charges.' In Cowles v. Hayes, 71 N.C. 230, the court allowed the jury to copy a memorandum of articles sold and the prices thereof, made out by plaintiff's counsel. This was o......
-
State v. Stocks
...Since 1874, this Court has held that it is proper, and often commendable, for jurors to make notes of the evidence. Cowles v. Hayes, 71 N.C. 230 (1874). In State v. Shedd, 274 N.C. 95, 161 S.E.2d 477 (1968), we wrote that the general authority in the United States is that the making and use......