Legal Opinion

Wooten v. . Bell

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 20, 1929PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOlaeksoN, J.

Tbe plaintiff sued defendant for tbe recovery of $750, and interest due by note made by defendant to her. Tbe defendant .ad mitted tbe execution o£ tbe note and plead payment. Tbe defendant set up tbe further defense, “That plaintiff with a view to evade payment of taxes failed to cause to be listed for taxation tbe note in question and pay taxes thereon. (This amendment allowed and made in progress of tbe trial.)

Tbe defendant’s first exception and assignment of error was to tbe effect that tbe Court erred in permitting tbe witness, A. T. "Wooten, to give evidence relative to tbe note, tbe…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Martin v. . KnightSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
  2. Mahoney-Jones Co. v. OsborneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  3. American National Bank v. BrickhouseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Lee v. . BankSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  2. Lee v. Merchants BankSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  3. Tilley v. . LindseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  4. Townsend Trust Co. v. ReynoldsCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1933

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API