Pettiford v. . Mayo
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil aotioN for recovery on a promissory note alleged to bave been executed by W. H. Simmons, tbe intestate of defendant, tried before Boykin, J., and a jury, at June Term 1895, of WASHINGTON Superior Court. Tbe only issue submitted was “Did W. H. Simmons execute tbe note sued ob.” There was verdict for the plaintiff and defendant appealed from a judgment thereon. The facts sufficiently'appear in the opinion of Associate Justice MONTGOMERY.
1Opinion of the Court
Montgomery, J.:
The defendant denied that his intestate executed the note sued on, and a single issue was submitted to the jury on that point. The plaintiff introduced a witness who testified to the execution of the note by the defendant’s intestate and who also testified, on his cross-examination, that the maker was a “man of property, had a good farm and lent money at times.” A witness for the defendant testified that the intestate was worth between three and four thousand dollars and had twenty five hundred dollars loaned out when he died. The court afterwards withdrew this testimony from…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brown v. . KinseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1879
3Cited by23 opinions
- Byrd v. Express Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- State v. BuchananSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
- State v. LampkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
- State v. ClarkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
- State v. . PrinceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.