Cotton v. . Beasley
Supreme Court of North Carolina
From Warren, This was an action of debt on a bond for fifty dollars, claimed in consequence of the Plaintiff’s having won a race, made and run pursuant to certain articles. The Plaintiff deposed, that the bond was not in his custody or possession, that it was deposited in the cilice of the Clerk of the-County Court, and he had made repeated applications for it, and could not procure it.
Read the full summary
From Warren, This was an action of debt on a bond for fifty dollars, claimed in consequence of the Plaintiff’s having won a race, made and run pursuant to certain articles. The Plaintiff deposed, that the bond was not in his custody or possession, that it was deposited in the cilice of the Clerk of the-County Court, and he had made repeated applications for it, and could not procure it. This mode of proving the loss of the bond was objected to by the Defendant, but admitted by the Court. The Clerk of the County Court swore that he had searched for the-bond in vain, and he believed it was not…
1Opinion of the CourtHaxoGi, Judge
' íí has been objected that parol evidence should not be introduced to prove the contents of the bond, because the act of Assembly on this subject declares, “ that on every trial, an obligation for the amount of the money, &c. bet, shall be. produced.” That is true, and the legislature no doubt had it in view to compel parties to produce evidence juf higher dignity, as to racing contracts, than before by the rules of law was requited. But before that act passed, if the sum bet had been secured bjr a written obligation, it was incumbent on the Plaintiff to produce it. In all cases, it is…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Dodson v. . BushSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1811
- McFarland v. . PattersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1816