Woodall v. . Prevatt
Supreme Court of North Carolina
The bill in this case was filed to Fall Term, 1852, of the Court of Equity for the county of Robeson. After the defendant had filed his answer, orders of replication and commission were taken ; and at Spring Term,'1853, the cause was set for hearing on the bill and answer, and transmitted to this Court.
Read the full summary
The bill in this case was filed to Fall Term, 1852, of the Court of Equity for the county of Robeson. After the defendant had filed his answer, orders of replication and commission were taken ; and at Spring Term,'1853, the cause was set for hearing on the bill and answer, and transmitted to this Court. The bill slated that on or about the 1st day of August, 1851, the defendant, who is the brother of the plaintiff’s wife, executed his promissory note under seal, and delivered the same to the plaintiff’s wife, by which he promised to pay the plaintiff one day after date, $250 ; that…
1Opinion of the CourtPearsoN, J.
The counsel for the defendant, Mr. Troy, was under the impression that he could use the answer as evidence, notwithstanding replication had been taken. In this he was mistaken. An answer puts at issue the allegations to which it responds, so as to require more than one witness to prove them. If replication is not taken, every fact set out in (he answer is admitted, for the reason, that no issue being made, the defendant has no opportunity of proving the new matter which he alleges. But by a replication, the plaintiff takes issue upon all new matter alleged in the answer, and the defendant is…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Thomason v. . BescherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
- Cruthis v. SteeleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Lamb v. . PigfordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1854