Dairy & Ice Cream Supply Co. v. Gastonia Ice Cream Co.
| Decision Date | 22 November 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 523,523 |
| Citation | 232 N.C. 684,61 S.E.2d 895 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | DAIRY & ICE CREAM SUPPLY CO., Inc., v. GASTONIA ICE CREAM CO. |
Garland & Garland, Gastonia, for defendant-appellant.
Basil L. Whitener, Gastonia, for plaintiff-appellee.
The plaintiff undertook to establish the facts upon which it based its action by the testimony of its President who read to the jury from a written statement purporting to show the numerous items constituting plaintiff's claim. It was testified this statement had been made up by a bookkeeper under witness' direction from the records in his office. The witness had no personal knowledge of the shipments of cans of frozen cream, except from the carrier's receipts, or of defendant's failure to return the empty containers, except from the reports placed on his desk. Defendant noted exception to this testimony, and assigns its admission as error.
The rule of evidence formerly observed by the courts limiting proof of items of business transactions to matters within the personal knowledge of a witness, has undergone revision in the light of modern business conditions and methods. Insurance Co. v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 138 N.C. 42, 50 S.E. 452; Breneman Co. v. Cunningham, 207 N.C. 77, 175 S.E. 829; Chaffee & Co. v. U. S., 18 Wall., 516, 21 L.Ed. 908. The impossibility of producing in court all the persons who observed, reported and recorded each individual transaction gave rise to the modification which permits the introduction of recorded entries, made in the regular course of business, at or near the time of the transaction involved, and authenticated by a witness who is familiar with them and the method under which they are made. This rule applies to original entries made in books of account in regular course by those engaged in business, when properly identified, though the witness may not have made the entries and may have had no personal knowledge of the transactions. Flowers v. Spears, 190 N.C. 747, 130 S.E. 710; Peebles v. Idol, 198 N.C. 56, 60, 150 S.E. 665; Atlas Supply Co. v. McCurry, 199 N.C. 799, 802, 156 S.E. 91; Edgerton v. Perkins, 200 N.C. 650, 158 S.E. 197; State v. Shipman, 202 N.C. 518, 525, 163 S.E. 657; State v. Lippard, 223 N.C. 167, 172, 25 S.E.2d 594; Stansbury on Evidence, sec. 155; 20 Am.Jur. 881, 892. See also Branch v. Ayscue, 186 N.C. 219, 119 S.E. 201; State v. Breece, 206 N.C. 92, 173 S.E. 9, and Lister v. Lister, 222 N.C. 555, 563, 24 S.E.2d 342.
But in the case at bar, according to the record before us, the plaintiff did not introduce the original...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Branch, 1
...and, therefore, the testimony in those groups was not admissible under any exception to the hearsay rule. Supply Co. v. Ice Cream Co., 232 N.C. 684, 61 S.E.2d 895 (1950); 1 Stansbury, Supra, § 155; McCormick, Evidence, Chapter 31 (2d ed. 1972). Nonetheless, a careful examination of the enti......
-
State v. McMilliam
...to search defendants' home. Cherry v. Roanoke Tobacco Warehouse Co., 237 N.C. 362, 75 S.E.2d 124; Dairy & Ice Cream Supply Co. v. Gastonia Ice Cream Co., 232 N.C. 684, 61 S.E.2d 895; Ballard v. Ballard, 230 N.C. 629, 55 S.E.2d 316; Gibbs v. Russ, 223 N.C. 349, 26 S.E.2d 909; Caulder v. Kive......
-
State v. Bovender
...by the evidence offered. Stansbury, sec. 153; kearney v. Thomas, 225 N.C. 156, 33 S.E.2d 871. See also Dairy & Ice Cream Supply Co. v. Gastonia Ice Cream Co., 232 N.C. 684, 61 S.E.2d 895. However, all the facts the copy referred to by the witness would have disclosed were testified by him f......
-
State v. Springer
...though the witness may not have made the entries and may have had no personal knowledge of the transactions.' Supply Co. v. Ice Cream Co., 232 N.C. 684, 61 S.E.2d 895 (1950). Few courts have dealt with the use in evidence of business records stored on computers. In King v. State for Use and......