{
  "id": 8686517,
  "name": "DAVID E. JACKSON v. G. T. EVANS, Adm'r",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jackson v. Evans",
  "decision_date": "1875-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "128",
  "last_page": "131",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "73 N.C. 128"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 317,
    "char_count": 6378,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.444,
    "sha256": "a67bd0ed02747c69c296b9ae14d74bdcadb1a25bf6b601e08cbdf304d87faa22",
    "simhash": "1:a1482b7c53103cc3",
    "word_count": 1069
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:55:27.517682+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DAVID E. JACKSON v. G. T. EVANS, Adm\u2019r."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Settle, J.\nIt is clear that the witness, Amos Evans, could not, without violating section 343 of chapter 17, Battle\u2019s Re-visal, be allowed to testify that by an arrangement between hitn and the defendant\u2019s intestate, the notes, which arc the subject of this action, became his (witness\u2019s) individual property, unless the question asked by the defendant on the cross-examination of the witness opened the door for this evidence and made it admissible. The witness, who is the surviving partner of the firm of A. & W. J. Evans, had been permitted, without objection, to testify that the copartnership was insolvent, that there were outstanding debts unpaid, that the copartnership \u2022was unsettled, and that it was insolvent at the death of his partner, W. J. Evans. In answer to a further question of the plaintiff, he testified \u201c that he passed the notes to the plaintiff for value.\u201d\nThe plaintiff offered to prove further by this witness, that he, witness, became the owner of the notes in the lifetime of W. J. Evans, the deceased partner, and how he became the owner.\u201d This, upon objection, was excluded.\nUpon the cross-examination of the witness, the defendant asked him if the notes referred to were passed by hitn to the plaintiff in payment of a copartnership debt or -an individual debt of his own. Witness answered that he passed them in payment of his individual debt.\nOn the re-direct examination of the witness, he was permitted by the Court, after objection by the defendant, to testify that by an arrangement between him, witness, and the defendant\u2019s intestate, the notes became his, witness\u2019s, individual property. His Honor was clearly right in excluding this evidence when first offered, and we cannot perceive that a question of the defendaut on the cross-examination, which only sought an explanation of a statement already made at the instance of the plaintiff, to wit, \u201c that he had passed the notes to the plaintiff for value,\u201d could have the legal effect to render all communications of the witness with bis deceased partner competent. The question of the defendant did not introduce new matter. It only called for; an explanation, on a single point, of matter already introduced by the plaintiff.\nThe position of the defendant, as the representative of a dead man, would indeed be embarrassing if he dare not open his mouth to test a single statement called out by his adversary lest he thereby open the door for all other statements.\nHow did the considerations which operated between the plaintiff and the witness, of which the intestate could know nothing, render arrangements and transactions between the \u25a0witness and the intestate competent ?\nIn Gray v. Cooper, 65 N. C. Rep., 183, the defendant asked a question which the plaintiff could not have asked, and proved a new fact, as to which the plaintiff\u2019s witness became the witness of the defendant, and therefore the plaintiff was permitted to examine the -witness in explanation of the new matter introduced by the defendant; but in this case, the question asked by the defendant was a legitimate one on the cross-examination of the witness in regard to matter introduced by the plaintiff.\nThe admission of improper testimony entitles the defendant to a venire de novo.\nLet this be 'certified.\nPice CuktaM.\nVenire do novo.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Settle, J. Pice CuktaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. JS. Moore, with whom was Gilliam <& Pruden, for ap- \\ pellants, insisted:",
      "No counsel contra in this Court."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DAVID E. JACKSON v. G. T. EVANS, Adm\u2019r.\nIn an action against an administrator, the testimony of a witness is not ' admissible to prove a transaction between the witness and the defendant\u2019s intestate, whereby certain bonds, the subject of this action, \u00cd were assigned to the witness who assigned them to the plaintiff; although upon the cross examination, a question, explanatory of a state- f ment made in his examination in chief, relative to such tranaction, had been asked the witness, and he had answered it. }\n(The case of Gray v. Cooper, 65 N. C. Rep. 183, cited, distinguished from this, and approved.)\nCivil actioN, tried before Moore, J., at Spring Term, 1875,. Pitt Superior Court.\nThe plaintiff declared upon the following bonds:\n\u201c Greenville, N. C., Feb. 1st, 1862.\n$133.00.\nFor value received I promise to pay to A. & W. J. Evans or order, one hundred and thirty-three dollars, with interest.\nWitness my hand and seal.\nW. J. EVANS, [l. s.] '\nGeeeNville, N. C., Aug. 4th, 1862.\n$168.06. i\nFor value received I promise to pay to A. & W. J. Evans- { or order, one hundred and sixty-eight dollars and six cents,. ( with interest.\nWitness my hand and seal.\nW. J. EVANS, [l. s.]\u201d\n\u2022 The defendant\u2019s intestate and Amos Evans were partners, ; under the firm name of A. & W. J. Evans. W. J. Evans, the defendant\u2019s intestate, died in the month of October, 1872. The plaintiff sues as the assignee of Amos Evans, the surviving partner of A. & W. J. Evans.\nAmos Evans was introduced as a witness by the plaintiff and testified as follows: The copartnership is insolvent, there j being now outstanding debts unpaid, and the business of the j firm remains unsettled. The copartnership was insolvent at ' the death of W. J. Evans. He passed the notes to the plainttiff \u00a1 for value. The witness then offered to prove that he became \\ the owner of the notes in the lifetime of \"W. J. Evans, and , how he became the owner. To this evidence the defendant objected, and the Court sustained the objection.\n; Upon cross-examination the defendant\u2019s counsel asked the witness if the notes in suit were passed by him to the plaintiff in payment of a copartnership debt or an individual debt of \\ his own % Witness answered that he passed them in payment i of his individual debt.\nOn re-direct examination witness was permitted by the Court, after objection by the defendant, to testily that by an arrangement between himself and the defendant\u2019s intestate, the note became his individual property. To this evidence the defendant excepted.\nThere was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, whereupon the defendant appealed.\nJ. JS. Moore, with whom was Gilliam <& Pruden, for ap- \\ pellants, insisted:\nj That the testimony is inadmissible. C. C. P.; Battle\u2019s Ke-visal, chap. 17, sec. 343.\n' Our case is distinguished from Gray v. Cooper, 6o N. C. | Eep. 183. In that case the testimony was as to an independ- \u2022 ent and separate fact outside of and distinct from any transac- \u2019 tion between the parties. Our case is a direct transaction between the parties.\nNo counsel contra in this Court."
  },
  "file_name": "0128-01",
  "first_page_order": 136,
  "last_page_order": 139
}