Melvin v. . Easley
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an action of Assumpsit, for a breach of a warranty of the soundness of a horse, tried before his Honor Judge SauN-DERS, on the last Circuit at New Hanover. For the purpose of proving the unsonndness of the horse, the plaintiff introduced three witnesses, who testified to the swelling of his sheath, &c., and his death.
Read the full summary
This was an action of Assumpsit, for a breach of a warranty of the soundness of a horse, tried before his Honor Judge SauN-DERS, on the last Circuit at New Hanover. For the purpose of proving the unsonndness of the horse, the plaintiff introduced three witnesses, who testified to the swelling of his sheath, &c., and his death. The defendant then examined a witness, who stated he had been the keeper of a livery stable, and thought he had some knowledge of the diseases of horses; and upon being asked his opinion, said he thought that the swelling of the sheath was not such a disease as would…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
We have no hesitation in saying that tbe defendant is entitled to a venire de novo, because of two errors committed, to his prejudice, by the Court. The book on the diseases of horses, extracts from which were given in charge to the jury, was not admissible in evidence, and yet the Court gave it all the effect of such. The rule is, that professional books, or books of science, (e. g. medical books,) are not admissible in evidence, though experts may be asked their judgment, and the grounds of it, which may in some degree be founded on books, as a part of their general knowledge. Collier v.…
2Cited by17 opinions
- State v. MillerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- Johnson v. BollingerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
- Cashwell v. Fayetteville Pepsi-Cola Bottling WorksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
- State v. . LittleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1947
- Cochran v. GritmanIdaho Supreme Court · 1921
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.