Martin v. McMillan's Adm'r
Supreme Court of North Carolina
After the venire de novo ordered in this cause hy the-Supreme Court at Eall Term, 1869, (see 63 N. O. Rep. 486} it came on to be tried again before his Honor, Judge Mitchell^ at the Eall Term, 1870, of the Superior Court of Alleghany County.
Read the full summary
After the venire de novo ordered in this cause hy the-Supreme Court at Eall Term, 1869, (see 63 N. O. Rep. 486} it came on to be tried again before his Honor, Judge Mitchell^ at the Eall Term, 1870, of the Superior Court of Alleghany County. On the trial the evidence was substantially the same as it was on the first trial, except that there was no testimony that the plaintiff said that he would take less for the mules for which the bond sued oh was given,, .because they were, intended tor the use of the Confederate government. The defendant’s counsel asked in writing for the following…
1Opinion of the Court
Pearson, O. J.
In Smitherman v. Sanders, 64 N. C. 522, the Court in commenting upon the case Martin v. McMillan, 63 N. C. Rep. 486, holds the principle to be “ the fact of furnishing horses for the Confederate army was an act which of itself aided the rebellion, and amounted to treason — that was the ground of the decision, and the fact that the plaintiff said he was taking less than the value, for the sake of the cause, was merely a circumstance in aggravation.”
The principles involved in this case have been so fully discussed in several cases recently before this Court, that the subject is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Martin v. . McMillan's Adm'r. .Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1869
- Smitherman v. . SandersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1870
3Cited by1 opinion
- Logan v. . PlummerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1874