Durham v. . Bostick and Martin
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Ejectment, tried before Sehenek, J., at Eall Term, 1874,. Cleaveland Superior Court. This action was brought against W. H. Bostick and Hill Hammick at Spring Term, 1873, and at Fall Term, William Martin was allowed to defend as landlord of Hill Hammick.
Read the full summary
Ejectment, tried before Sehenek, J., at Eall Term, 1874,. Cleaveland Superior Court. This action was brought against W. H. Bostick and Hill Hammick at Spring Term, 1873, and at Fall Term, William Martin was allowed to defend as landlord of Hill Hammick. Hammick had been in possession of said land since 1869. The land in dispute originally belonged to D. D. Durham and was conveyed to Bostick in 1862 or 1863. The plaintiff claims title to said land under a sheriff’s deed, made on the 9th of April, 1872, in pursuance of an execution against W. H. Bostick, in favor of Eliza Webber, executrix. The…
1Opinion of the CourtPeaRson, C. J.
Mr. Bailey for the appellant made seven points, and it is necessary to dispose of them separately.
The purpose of an argument at bar is to have both sides presented, and to aid the Court in coming to a conclusion, by showing what can be said on the two sides. This purpose of “ aiding the Court ” requires an attorney to abandon all points made in the hurry of the Circuit, which upon more consideration he finds not to be tenable, so as to devote his argument to the main points of the case, without causing a diversion of the mind of the Court, to matters of minor importance.
1. The execution…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Gregory Co. v. CaleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
- McCanless v. . FlinchumSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
- Silver Valley Mining Co. v. Baltimore Gold & Silver Mining & Smelting Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
- McCracken v. . AdlerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
- Durham v. . WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.