Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina

Shields v. . Smith

79 N.C. 517

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction
North Carolina
Date
1878-06-05
Topic
general

Reade, J. The question being whether a transaction between Hyman and Smith and Briggs was bona fide, the said Smith one of the defendants was allowed to testify as a witness to a conversation between himself and said Hyman as to the very transaction while it was in process of arrangement — the said Hyman being dead at the time of the trial. This would be in conflict with C. C. P., § 343, which provides that no party to the action * * * shall be examined in regard to any transaction or communication between such witness and a person at the time of such examination deceased, where.the representative of such deceased person is a party.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Shields v. . Smith. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
8 opinions
SHIELDSv. SMITH,79 N.C. 517(1878)
W. H. SHIELDS and others v. A. H. SMITH and others.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
(June Term, 1878.)
Witness — Party in Interest.

Under sec. 343, C. C. P., a party to an action is a competent witness as to a transaction between himself and a person at the time of such examination deceased, when the representative of such deceased person is not a party to the action.
APPEAL at January Special Term, 1878, of HALIFAX, fromSchenck, J.

His Honor overruled the objection to the testimony of the witness upon the facts set out in the opinion of this Court. Verdict and judgment for defendants and appeal by plaintiffs.
Mr. T. N. Hill, for plaintiffs.Messrs. Gilliam GatlingandBusbee Busbee, for defendants.
READE, J.
The question being whether a transaction between Hyman and Smith and Briggs wasbona fide, the said Smith, one of the defendants, was allowed to testify as a witness to a conversation between himself and said Hyman as to the very transaction while it was in process of arrangement — the said Hyman being dead at the time of the trial. This would be in conflict with C. C. P., sec. 43, which provides that no party to the action * * * shall be examined in regard to any transaction or communication between such witness and a person at the time of such examination deceased, where the representative of such deceased person is a party. But here the representative of Hyman, the deceased person, is not a party and therefore the exclusion does not apply and the testimony was competent. This is the only question of importance, because the jury find the transactionbonafide.

Affirmed.Cited: Hawkins v. Carpenter,85 N.C. 482;Morgan v. Bunting,86 N.C. 66;Gidney v. Moore, Ib., 484; Ledbetter v. Graham,122 N.C. 754; McGowanv. Davenport, 134 N.C. 530.Page 387(518)