Holland v. . Hartley
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal by plaintiff from Gline, J., at November Term, 1915, of FORSYTH. Civil action, tried upon these issues: 1. Had the defendant’s son, Ira Hartley, been emancipated by the defendant at the time the unpaid board bill was made? Answer: “Tes.” 2. Is the defendant indebted to the plaintiff, and, if so, in what amount? Answer: “None.” From the judgment rendered, plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBkowN, J.
This action is brought to recover of the defendant a board bill for his minor son. The plaintiff rests her case upon two grounds:
First. That the son was not emancipated by the father, and, consequently, that the father is liable for the support of his minor son. His Honor very properly placed the burden of proof upon the defendant to satisfy the jury by a preponderance of evidence that the son had been emancipated from the control of his parent. The evidence tends to prove that the child left his father’s roof when he was about 18 years old, by an agreement with the defendant that the son was…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Gillikin v. BurbageSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Goodyear v. GoodyearSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
- County of Alameda v. KaiserCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- Jolley Ex Rel. Jolley v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
- ACCENT SERV. CO., INC. v. EbsenNebraska Supreme Court · 1981
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.