Guy v. Manuel
| Decision Date | 31 October 1883 |
| Citation | 89 N.C. 83 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | SAMUEL J. GUY v. SHADRACH MANUEL. |
EJECTMENT tried at Spring Term, 1882, of CUMBERLAND Superior Court, before Shipp, J.
The defendant first filed an answer to the plaintiff's complaint as follows:
1. That the first article therein contained is not true.
2. That so much of the second article of the plaintiff's complaint as alleges that the defendant is in possession of the fifteen acres therein described is admitted, but denies that he wrongfully withholds the possession of the same.
Subsequently, by leave of the court, the defendant was permitted to file the following answer, to-wit:
1. That no allegation of the first article thereof is true.
2. That no allegation of the second article thereof is true.
There was no verification of either answer, and both were signed by the defendant's counsel.
Verdict and judgment for the defendant and the plaintiff appealed.
Messrs. W. A. Guthrie and N. W. Ray, for plaintiff .
Messrs. Hinsdale & Devereux, for defendant .
On the trial, several exceptions were taken by the plaintiff to the ruling of His Honor upon points of evidence, only two of which do we consider it important to consider. First, the plaintiff offered to send to the jury the first answer filed by the defendant, contending that it was an admission of record, but the court refused to receive it as evidence. In this there was error. The case of Adams v. Utley, 87 N. C., 356, directly bears upon the point here presented, and we think is decisive of this case. There, there were two answers filed by the defendant; the first admitted a credit on the bond sued upon; and the second, as here, denied each allegation of the complaint. The plaintiff offered to read the first answer to the jury as evidence to rebut the presumption of payment, relied on by the defendant in his second answer. It was held that the evidence was competent, and that “the admissions of a party are always evidence against him, and the fact that they are contained in the pleadings filed in the cause does not affect its competency.” But the defendant's counsel insist that that case is distinguishable from this, because there, the answers were verified by the defendant, and in this, they are simply signed by counsel without verification. It is a distinction without a practical difference. For the admissions of attorneys in the conduct of an action are always admissible in evidence against their clients, especially when the admissions are of record. Taylor on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kunglig Jarnvagsstyrelsen v. Dexter & Carpenter
...Evans v. Daniel, 289 F. 335 (C. C. A. 9); Ranken v. Probey, 136 App. Div. 134, 120 N. Y. S. 413; Daub v. Englebach, 109 Ill. 267; Guy v. Manuel, 89 N. C. 83. If the agent made the admission without adequate information, that goes to its weight, not to its admissibility. There was no error i......
-
Everett Waddey Co v. Richmond Typographical Union No. 90
...the exceptions cannot be sustained. Gossler v. Wood, 120 N. C. 69, 27 S. E. 33; Cummings v. Hoffman, 113 N. C. 267, 18 S. E. 170; Guy v. Manuel, 89 N. C. 83; Adams v. Utley, 87 N. C. 356. The third exception is to the testimony of a disinterested witness that he heard J. H. Parker say that ......
-
State v. Portee
...from the inference which may arise from the attendant circumstances, should be received with caution as proof of guilt." In Guy v. Manuel, 89 N.C. at page 86, Ashe, speaking for the court, said: "To make the statements of others evidence against one on the ground of his implied admission of......
-
Maney v. Greenwood
...374, State v. Williams, 65 N.C. 505, Jenkins v. Ore Co., 65 N.C. 563, State v. Byran, 89 N.C. 531, State v. Suggs, 89 N.C. 527, Guy v. Manuel, 89 N.C. 83, State v. Rogers, 94 N.C. 860, and Chambers v. Greenwood, 68 N.C. 274, and numerous other authorities, settle the general principle that-......