Ellis v. Hetfield

Full title: ELLIS' ADM'R v. HETFIELD. — 1 Mart., 41

Court: Superior Court of North Carolina NEW BERN

Date published: Sep 1, 1795

1 N.C. 71 (N.C. Super. 1795)

Opinion

September Term, 1795.

In covenant by an administrator, non est factum pleaded, the handwriting of the plaintiff, who was the only subscribing witness, was permitted to be proved, but the Court also required proof of the signature of the defendant.

Covenant and non est factum pleaded. Martin, for the plaintiff, offered to give evidence of the handwriting of the plaintiff, who was the only subscribing witness to the speciality; and cited Godfrey v. Norris, 1 Strange, 34.

This was objected to by Slade, for the defendant: but

Admitted by the Court, WILLIAMS, J., and HAYWOOD, J.

And proof having given of the subscribing witness' handwriting:

WILLIAMS, J., required that the signature of the defendant should also be proved.

HAYWOOD, J., tacente.

It was accordingly done, and the plaintiff had a verdict.

NOTE. — See the note to Hamilton v. Williams, 2 N.C. 139, and the cases there referred to, and also the case of Saunders v. Ferrill, 23 N.C. 97.

Cited: Ballard v. Ballard, 75 N.C. 192.

(72)