Carter v. . Wood
Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Robeson County, at the Spring Term 1850, his Honor Judge Set* tle presiding. This was a rule which had been served on the defen - dant to show cause why he should not be taxed with (ho costs of the plaintiff’s witnesses, in a case which had been tried between the same parties.
Read the full summary
• Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Robeson County, at the Spring Term 1850, his Honor Judge Set* tle presiding. This was a rule which had been served on the defen - dant to show cause why he should not be taxed with (ho costs of the plaintiff’s witnesses, in a case which had been tried between the same parties. The plaintiff had brought an action of trespass vi et armis, in forma pauperis, against the. defendant, in which there was a verdict for the plaintiff and judgment for the amount of the verdict only. Some of the plaintiff’s witnesses had drawn their tickets from tho office,…
1Opinion of the CourtNash, J.
We have listened with pleasure to the argument, submitted to us in behalf of the plaintiff. The case does not, however, properly present the question designed to be raised. That a person suing in forma pauperis, in general, neither pays nor recovers costs, has been considered the established law of this State, ever since the case of Clark v. Dupree, 2nd Dev. 411. But whether under that rule the attendance of his witnesses is embraced has not been decided. The case before us does not present the point. The plaintiff had been permitted to sue in forma pauperis and had recovered a verdict. The…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Standley v. . HodgesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1801
- Superior Court Office v. . LockmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1827