First National Bank of Elizabeth City v. Brockett
First National Bank of Elizabeth City, N. C., v. Robert Brockett
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Allen, J.
The principle requiring the loss of a paper to be established before evidence of its contents is admitted has no application to this case, because the defendant admits in his answer the execution of the check, the amount, on what bank drawn, and to whom payable, and the nonproduction of the paper was only material after verdict in determining the action of the court with reference to indemnity. There was, however, evidence of loss of the check.
*42 0. 0. Hayes, a member of tbe firm of 0. Syer & Co., testified tbat be received tbe check from tbe defendant and sent it to tbe plaintiff. E. V. Griffin, wbo was employed in tbe plaintiff bank, testified tbat tbe check-was sent out to tbe Bank of Commerce at High Point in a letter be wrote; and IT. A. Willis, cashier of tbe Bank of Commerce,, testified, in substance, tbat tbe Bank of Commerce did not receive tbe check. This, if true, raises a fair presumption tbat tbe check was lost in tbe mail.
It is true, contradictory statements were made by some of these witnesses on cross-examination, but, as said in Shell v. Roseman, 155 N. C., 94 , and approved in Christman v. Hilliard, 167 N. C., 5 , this affected tbe credibility of tbe witness only, and did not justify withdrawing the-evidence from tbe jury.
Tbe judgment of nonsuit must be set aside.
Reversed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.