Brantley v. Marshbourn
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal by defendants from Bond, J., at January Term, 1914, of Nash. This was a special proceeding for the division of property belonging to a partnership, returnable before the clerk. Issues of fact being raised by the answer, the cause was transferred to the civil-issue docket for trial at a regular term.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendants from Bond, J., at January Term, 1914, of Nash. This was a special proceeding for the division of property belonging to a partnership, returnable before the clerk. Issues of fact being raised by the answer, the cause was transferred to the civil-issue docket for trial at a regular term. The question at issue in the case was whether or not the plaintiff, C. B. Brantley, owned a two-thirds interest in the partnership property and all its original capital, or whether he owned only a one-half interest. It was admitted by all parties that when the partnership was first formed,…
1Opinion of the CourtAlleN, J.
The evidence of 0. B. Brantley and of S. H. .Brantley, relating solely to a transaction taking place between themselves, and at which the deceased Marshbourn was not present, both S. H. and C. B. Brantley being alive, does not come within the letter or the spirit of section 1631 of the Ee-. visal. Bunn v. Todd, 107 N. C., 266.
It does not refer to a conversation or transaction with a deceased person.
It is equally clear that the declarations of Marshbourn against his interest were competent, and those in his own favor were properly excluded.
The record is not entirely clear as to the evidence of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bunn v. . ToddSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- Morse v. FreemanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911