Legal Opinion

Endicott-Johnson Corp. v. . Schochet

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 6, 1930PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrogden, J.

The trial judge excluded the verified statement offered by plaintiff apparently upon the theory that it was not in the proper form. C. S., 1789, was'enacted for the purpose of facilitating the proof of claims specified in the statute. As an itemized verified statement of account is only an ex parte statement, the courts have held that the statute should be strictly construed. Nall v. Kelly, 169 N. C., 717, 86 S. E., 627. Furthermore, the person who verifies the account is to be treated as a witness pro tanto, and hence the verification must be made by a person who would be a competent witness…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hardy v. Phoenix Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
  2. Nall v. . KellySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  3. William M. Lloyd & Co. v. PoythressSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
  4. Worthington v. . JollySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Bramco Electric Corp. v. ShellCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976
  2. Johnson Service Co. v. Richard J. Curry & Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API