Legal Opinion

Batten v. . Aycock

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 12, 1944PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BaeNhill, J".

Plaintiff on bis examination-in-chief was competent to testify to tbe bandwriting of tbe deceased from bis general knowledge, but not to testify that be saw tbe deceased person actually sign tbe par ticular receipt. Lister v. Lister, 222 N. C., 555, and cases cited; Herring v. Ipock, 187 N. C., 459, 121 S. E., 758.

When, however, the defendant, representative of the deceased, was examined in behalf of the defendants concerning the same transaction, she thus opened the door and made competent the testimony of her adversary concerning the same transaction about which she testified.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Sumner v. . CandlerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
  2. Pope v. . PopeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
  3. Walston v. . CoppersmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
  4. Hall v. HollomanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
  5. Lister v. ListerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Hayes v. RicardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  2. Waddell v. CarsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  3. Sprinkle v. PonderSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  4. Pearce v. BarhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  5. Highfill v. ParrishSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API