Johnson v. Patterson

Decision Date31 December 1822
Citation9 N.C. 183
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesJOHNSON v. PATTERSON.—From Wilkes.

Where witnesses are called to prove declarations made by a witness inconsistent with what he deposes on the trial, it is perfectly regular in reply to show other declarations made by the same witness in affirmance of what he has now sworn, and that he is still consistent with himself.

TROVER, brought to recover damages for the conversion of a horse. On the trial below the plaintiff proved by one Bailey that it was agreed between the plaintiff and witness, who was on a journey to Tennessee, that a temporary exchange of horses should be made between them; that the witness should leave his horse with plaintiff and ride that of plaintiff to Tennessee and back again; and if on his return both were satisfied, to make a permanent exchange, witness to pay to plaintiff $25 as the difference of value between the horses, and if either were dissatisfied witness was to pay plaintiff $10 for the use of his horse. The witness proceeded on his journey with the horse, which is the

foundation of the present action, and in Tennessee was overtaken by the defendant, who had pursued him from this State. The defendant was agent for the firm of Waugh & Finley, and when he overtook witness charged him with having removed from North Carolina a person indebted to the firm of which he was agent. Witness then, on condition that defendant would permit him to go unmolested, and in satisfaction of the claim which defendant set up against him, surrendered the horse in controversy to the defendant. The defense relied on was that the exchange of horses between plaintiff and Bailey was complete, and plaintiff had no title. To prove this two witnesses, Austin and McNeilly, were introduced by defendant, who swore that in conversation with Bailey and plaintiff, both when they were apart and also in the presence of each other, they stated that an exchange had taken place between them, but said nothing of any conditions. Theplaintiff then called a witness, Foster, who proved that he heard plaintiff tell Bailey a few days before he started for Tennessee, and after the exchange, to take good care of the horse and not dispose of him before his return. The evidence of this witness was objected to by defendant, but received by the court. The court left it to the jury to collect from the evidence whether the exchange between Bailey and the plaintiff was permanent or made only for a special purpose. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. A rule for a new trial was obtained and afterwards discharged by the court, and judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant appealed to this Court.

TAYLOR, C. J. The question in controversy between these parties was whether the horse belonged to the plaintiff or to the witness, Thomas Bailey, under whom the defendant claims, and this depended on the fact whether the plaintiff and Bailey had made an absolute or conditional sale. For the purpose of proving that the contract was of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Burnett v. Wilmington
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 16, 1897
    ...a witness by showing that previously he had made the same statement as to the transaction as that given by him on the trial. Johnson v. Patterson, 9 N. C. 183; State v. Twitty, Id. 449; State v. George, 30 N. C. 324; State v. Dove, 32 N. C. 469; Bullinger v. Marshall, 70 N. C. 520; State v.......
  • State v. Harris, 7915SC910
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • April 15, 1980
    ...if indeed it did so corroborate. Such testimony is competent for this purpose. An unbroken line of cases beginning with Johnson v. Patterson, 9 N.C. 183 (1822), sustains this rule. Where defendant contends part of the testimony does not tend to corroborate the prior witness's testimony, he ......
  • Cuthbertson v. Austin
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 13, 1910
    ...of his memory and the truthfulness of his evidence has been so often declared in numerous cases before the court, from Johnson v. Patterson, 9 N. C. 183, 11 Am. Dec. 756 (decided in 1822), down to the recent case of Jones v. Jones, 80 N. C. 246, and the rule so thoroughly settled and so oft......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT