History
  • No items yet
midpage
Allen v. Jordan.
3 N.C. 132
Sup. Ct. N.C.
1801
Check Treatment

This is a material alteration of the note. Suppose it were given on a condition known to the first subscribing witness, and then a suit were commenced, and the second subscribing witness summoned for the plaintiff to prove it. He may not know anything of the condition, being not the witness called by the parties to attest. Of course, he will prove the note, and the plaintiff will recover, notwithstanding the condition.

The jury, however, found for the plaintiff, and TAYLOR, J., being moved for a new trial, refused it on the ground that the verdict was according to the equity of the case. The motion was opposed on the ground that this was a new trial, and that a second new trial should not be granted against two concurring verdicts.

NOTE. — As to the first point, see contra Blackwell v. Lane, 20 N.C. 113. Upon the other point, see Manning v. Brickell, post, 133; Billersv. Ragan, 2 N.C. 13, and the cases referred to in the note. See, alsoGoodman v. Smith, 15 N.C. 450; Bank v. Pugh, 7 N.C. 389; Terrell v.Wiggins, 23 N.C. 172. *Page 131

Case Details

Case Name: Allen v. Jordan.
Court Name: Superior Court of North Carolina
Date Published: Jul 5, 1801
Citation: 3 N.C. 132
Court Abbreviation: Sup. Ct. N.C.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.