Sweany v. Hunter
Supreme Court of North Carolina
—From Johnson. The plaintiff was summoned as a witness for the defendant in a suit brought bv him against one Jesse Mitchell, * &, failing to attend pursuant to the subpoena served on him, he was at June term, 1800, of Johnson county-court, called out and judgment nisi for the forfeiture, given by the law for his failure to attend, was entered against him.
Read the full summary
—From Johnson. The plaintiff was summoned as a witness for the defendant in a suit brought bv him against one Jesse Mitchell, * &, failing to attend pursuant to the subpoena served on him, he was at June term, 1800, of Johnson county-court, called out and judgment nisi for the forfeiture, given by the law for his failure to attend, was entered against him. After-wards it was agreed between the plaintiff and defendant, that if plaintiff would attend at the next term of the court and give his testimony, the defendant would save him harmless as to the forfeiture aforesaid. The plaintiff did…
1Opinion of the Court
Locke —Judge
delivered the opinion of the court — -To . • « . tv * i . _ ascertain whether there is a sufficient’consideration in this case to support an assumpsit, it is first necessary to f-ne whether the plaintiff was not bound to by operation of the subpoena, and without any additional recompence or reward. The act of 1777,- eh. 3, declares 1 es that every witness being summoned to appear in any of the said courts in manner as herein before described, shall appear accordingly and continue to attend from term to ' Until discharged by the court, or the party at whose , *182instance such witness…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Victor v. . MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Devany v. .Superior Court of North Carolina · 1803