Legal Opinion

Abernethy v. . Armburst

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 10, 1940PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtBarnhill, J.

There was no error in the admission of the judgment roll in the former action. Defendant’s testatrix was the party plaintiff therein and these plaintiffs were the parties defendant. The record in the former action being in existence is the only evidence admissible to prove its contents. Gauldin v. Madison, 179 N. C., 461, 102 S. E., 851; Little v. Bost, 208 N. C., 762, 182 S. E., 448; Gibson v. Gordon, 213 N. C., 666, 197 S. E., 135; Whitaker v. Garren, 167 N. C., 658, 83 S. E., 759; Bruton v. Light Co., ante, 1.

The former action was an action in ejectment to recover from these plaintiffs…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Whitaker v. GarrenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  2. Gauldin v. Town of MadisonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
  3. Gibson v. . GordonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  4. Little v. . BostSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
  5. Whitaker v. . GarrenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Stewart v. HuntDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API