Sprague v. Bond
| Decision Date | 19 December 1893 |
| Parties | SPRAGUE v. BOND et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Caldwell county; James D. McIver, Judge.
Action by W. D. Sprague against Louisa N. Bond and another for receiver, and accounting for the proceeds of certain lands conveyed by him to said Louisa, and sold by her, in which plaintiff claims an equitable interest. Rebecca B. Adams intervened as to certain of the property, claiming under an unrecorded deed from plaintiff prior to that to defendant and as having advanced the purchase money for the lands conveyed to her. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Reversed.
In an action against a principal, founded on contracts made with plaintiff by a deceased agent, plaintiff may testify as to his transactions with said agent, and the latter's declarations as a part thereof.
S. J Ervin, for appellants.
M Silver and Avery & Ervin, for appellee.
The motion to dismiss the appeal must be denied. The case of Clements v. Rogers, 95 N.C. 248, is decisive of the point. In that action, as in this, there was a verdict for the plaintiff on the trial of the pleas in bar, and an order for an account. An appeal from that order was not considered premature, because, if the pleas in bar were established, the plaintiff would not be entitled to an account, and the action would be at an end. The reason of the rule applies with full force here. Upon the trial, certain evidence was offered on plaintiff's part to corroborate his own testimony in regard to the matter in controversy. This evidence was not competent for any other purpose, consisting, as it did, of declarations made by him soon after the transaction, corresponding with the statements made by him on the witness stand. When this evidence was offered, it was conceded that it was only competent for this purpose, and for that purpose alone did his honor admit it. Among the instructions asked for by defendants was the following: "The evidence of the declarations of the plaintiff in regard to the matters in controversy are not substantive evidence of the truth of said matters, and are only competent in evidence for the purpose of corroborating the witness Sprague, and can only be considered by you for this purpose, and you can give it such weight as you think it is entitled to." The case states that this instruction was refused. In this there was error that entitled the defendants to a new trial. It is settled by Bullinger v. Marshall, 70 N.C. 520, that it must follow, from a party's being allowed to be a witness, that, if his testimony be impeached, he may be corroborated by showing that he had, soon after the matter occurred, made the same statement in regard to it. The rule was there established as a necessary corollary of the statute which allowed a party to be a witness in his own behalf. The learned justice who delivered the opinion of the court in that case was evidently loth to yield to this innovation, as he considered it, foreseeing, as he no doubt did, that it would be most difficult to restrain the effect of such evidence, and prevent it from operating on the minds of the jury as substantive proof of the facts in dispute. Because there is this danger of its exercising an improper influence upon the jury, it is incumbent on the judge presiding at the trial where such corroborative evidence is introduced, to see to it, even without any request for special instructions, that the jury fully understand the use they are permitted to make of it; and we must hold that the failure to caution them in this particular when such a request is made, as was done by the defendants here, entitled them to a new trial.
As this cause, for the reason above stated, must be tried again, we deem it proper to say that, upon the allegations made by Mrs Rebecca B. Adams in her pleadings filed, we think she is a proper party to this action, and that the truth of the allegations made by her, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Steele
...134 N.C. 209, 46 S.E. 511; Sprague v. Bond, 113 N.C. 551, 18 S.E. 701; and Lockhart's Hand Book on Evidence, § 278. As stated in Sprague v. Bond, supra, and in State Parker, supra, and Westfeldt v. Adams, 135 N.C. on page 600, 47 S.E. 816, it was then the rule that the trial judge must, wit......
-
Faricy v. St. Paul Investment & Savings Society
... ... v. Harris, 29 Cal. 150; Coffey v. Greenfield, ... 55 Cal. 382; Hall v. Jack, 32 Md. 253; Morey v ... Lett, 18 Colo. 128, 31 P. 857; Sprague v. Bond, ... 113 N.C. 551, 18 S.E. 701; Maddox v. Teague, 18 ... Mont. 593, 47 P. 209; Hosmer v. Darrah, 85 A.D. 485, ... 83 N.Y.S. 413; Jacobson ... ...
-
Gwaltney v. Provident Sav. Life Assur. Soc.
... ... with the defendant's agent was competent, notwithstanding ... the death of the agent. Roberts v. Railroad, 109 ... N.C. 670, 14 S.E. 106; Sprague v. Bond, 113 N.C ... 551, 18 S.E. 701 ... The ... plaintiff further testified, and the jury found, that in ... December, ... ...
-
State v. Chapman
...not operate on their minds as substantive proof of the facts in dispute." Lockhart, Handbook on Evidence, Sec. 278, citing Sprague v. Bond, 113 N.C. 551, 18 S.E. 701, and State v. Parker, 134 N.C. 209, 46 S.E. The defendant did testify in his own behalf and the corroborative testimony was p......