Boyden v. . Odeneal
Supreme Court of North Carolina
From Stokes. Case for words tried before Norwood, Judge, and on the ¡rial, the only question was, whether the Plaintiff was barred by the statute of limitations.
Read the full summary
From Stokes. Case for words tried before Norwood, Judge, and on the ¡rial, the only question was, whether the Plaintiff was barred by the statute of limitations. Tbe entry in the margin of tbe writ was in these words, “issued the 18th day of July 1823,” and the Defendant offi-red to prove that in Fact the writ was not issued until the 28th of September, 1823. This evidence was opposed on the part of the Plaintiff, who proved that the writ was filled up and issued by T. Lacy, an attorney of the Court below, and contended that the entry in his handwriting was conclusive of the time of issuing…
1Opinion
Laws 1777, Rev., ch. 115, sec. 13, made it the duty of the clerk or attorney issuing process to mark thereon the day on which it shall be issued. When process has been issued by an attorney, his indorsement thereon of the day on which it is issued is prima facie evidence but no more.
The Legislature did not intend to give such an indorsement the force of a record. In the present case the plaintiffs proved that the indorsement was made by T. Lacy; it was surely competent for the defendant to prove (and by evidence of the same grade) that the indorsement was not made by T. Lacy, but that it was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jenkins v. . CockerhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1840
- Simpson v. . SuttonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1867