Shelton v. Hampton
| Decision Date | 31 December 1845 |
| Citation | 6 Ired. 216,28 N.C. 216 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | ANNIS SHELTON v. HENRY G. HAMPTON. |
A party is never permitted to produce general evidence to discredit his own witness; but if a witness prove facts in a cause, which make against the party who called him, yet the party may call other witnesses to prove that these facts were otherwise.
One, who has made a mortgage of property to secure a debt, may afterwards convey the same property to the mortgagee absolutely, in satisfaction of the debt, provided the conveyance be bona fide and for a fair price.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Surry County, at the Fall Term, 1845, his Honor Judge PEARSON presiding.
This was an action of Trover. The only material questions that arose on the trial were--First, when the plaintiff had introduced a witness, who swore against her interest, whether she could offer other witnesses to disprove what the first had sworn to. His Honor decided that the plaintiff could not be allowed to discredit her witness by showing that he was a man of bad general character, but that she might prove by other witnessess, that the facts were different from those sworn to by the first witness.
Secondly, whether, when a man had given a mortgage to secure a debt, he could afterwards, for the consideration of the same debt and no other, convey the same property absolutely to the mortgagee. His Honor decided that he might, provided the conveyance was bona fide.
A verdict having been rendered for the plaintiff, the defendant moved for a new trial upon the ground of error in his Honor's opinion, upon the two points above stated, and also upon the ground, that, in charging the jury, his Honor did not recapitulate all the testimony. A new trial being refused and judgment rendered pursuant to the verdict, the defendant appealed.
Boyden, for the plaintiff .
Kerr, for the defendant .
First: A party never shall be permitted to produce general evidence to discredit his own witness; but, if a witness prove facts in a cause, which make against the party who called him, yet the party may call other witnesses to prove, that those facts were otherwise. The other witnesses are not called directly to discredit the first witness, but the impeachment of his credit is incidental and consequential only. Bull. N. P. 296. Lord ELLENBOROUGH, (in Alexander v. Gibson, 2 Camp. 556,) said, if a witness is called and gives evidence against the party calling him, I think he may be contradicted by other witnesses on the same side, and that, in this manner, his evidence may be entirely r...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tilley
...61 S.E. 575; Kendrick v. Dellinger, 117 N.C. 491, 23 S.E. 438; Strudwick v. Brodnax, 83 N.C. 401; Wilson v. Derr, 69 N.C. 137; Shelton v. Hampton, 28 N.C. 216; Sawrey v. Murrell, 3 N.C. 397. Despite an early decision to the contrary (State v. Norris, 2 N.C. 429, 1 Am.D. 564), the rule appli......
- Enloe v. Sherrill
-
Dennis v. Tomlinson
...to purchase it. Knight v. Marjoribanks, 2 Macn. & G. 10; Hicks v. Hicks, 5 Gill & J. 75; Hinkley v. Wheelwright, 29 Md. 341; Shelton v. Hampton, 6 Ired. 216; and Jones, Mortg. § 711, and authorities cited. There was no evidence to show that Simpson held the lands otherwise than as owner. In......