Sumner v. Candler
Decision Date | 28 February 1885 |
Citation | 92 N.C. 634 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | J. B. SUMNER, Adm'r, v. T. J. CANDLER. |
This was a CIVIL ACTION, tried before Graves, Judge, at Spring Term, 1885, of BUNCOMBE Superior Court.
The action was brought to recover from the defendant, the amount of certain claims against the State of North Carolina, drawn on the Treasury of the State, which the defendant drew from the said treasury, to the use of the plaintiff. The defendant relied upon the plea of accord and satisfaction. On the trial the plaintiff introduced himself as a witness and testified as follows: On cross-examination he said he had been prosecuting this suit. Jesse Sumner, son of the plaintiff's intestate, was then introduced by the plaintiff, and testified as follows:
The defendant introduced himself as a witness and testified as follows:
At this point the defendant offered to assign the reason why nothing was said, and the plaintiff objected. The court said the defendant might testify as to the transaction or communication with deceased, about which the plaintiff, his administrator, had testified, but not as to any other transaction or communication with the deceased. The defendant excepted. The witness then testified that the witness, the plaintiff, was not at the house of John Hendrix.
The defendant then offered to testify in regard to the matter testified to by Jesse Sumner, son of deceased; objected to, objection sustained, and defendant excepted.
The defendant then offered himself as a witness to testify for all purposes. Plaintiff objected; objection sustained, exception by the defendant. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.
Messrs. Theo. F. Davidson and J. H. Merrimon, for the plaintiff .
Messrs. McLoud & Moore, for the defendant .
ASHE, J. (after stating the facts).
The first exception taken by the defendant was to His Honor's refusal to allow the testimony of the defendant, as to the reason why nothing was said when he and the plaintiff's intestate met near the mill. There was no error in the ruling of His Honor in that respect. He told the witness, he might testify as to the transaction or communication with the deceased. The fact that the witness did not proceed to testify, was evidence that what he proposed to say was not about the transaction or communication that was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Newbern v. Hinton
...Bland v. O'Hagan, 64 N. C. 471; Street v. Bryan, 65 N. C. 619; State v. Purdie, 67 N. C. 326; Knight v. Killebrew, 86 N. C, 402; Sumner v. Candler, 92 N. C. 634; State v. McNair, 93 N. C. 628; State v. Bhyne, 109 N. C. 794, 13 S. E. 943; Baker v. Norfolk & S. R. Co., 144 N. C. 40, 56 S. E. ......
-
State v. Lane
...therefore see that there was error. In re Smith's Will, 163 N.C. 464, 79 S.E. 977; State v. Rhyne, 109 N.C. 794, 13 S.E. 943; Sumner v. Candler, 92 N.C. 634; Knight Killebrew, 86 N.C. 400. We must know what the answer would have been, before we can pass upon the competency or relevancy of t......
-
Newbern v. Hinton
...431; Bland v. O'Hagan, 64 N.C. 471; Street v. Bryan, 65 N.C. 619; State v. Purdie, 67 N.C. 326; Knight v. Killebrew, 86 N.C. 402; Sumner v. Candler, 92 N.C. 634; v. McNair, 93 N.C. 628; State v. Rhyne, 109 N.C. 794, 13 S.E. 943; Baker v. Norfolk & S. R. Co., 144 N.C. 40, 56 S.E. 553; Boney ......
-
Sprinkle v. Ponder
...224 N.C. 225, 29 S.E.2d 739; Lewis v. Mitchell, 200 N.C. 652, 158 S.E. 183; Herring v. Ipock, 187 N.C. 459, 121 S.E. 758; Sumner v. Chandler, 92 N.C. 634. The plaintiff also contends that the foregoing testimony of Alice Bradley, tending to set up a parol contract to convey land, should hav......