Merchants National Bank v. Newton

MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK v. J. SPRUNT NEWTON Et Als.

Merchants Nat'l Bank v. Newton, 81 S.E. 317 (N.C. 1914)

Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided: April 8, 1914
Judges: Hoke
Citations: 81 S.E. 317165 N.C. 3631914 N.C. LEXIS 269

Cited by 8

Headnotes

Statutes — Evidence—Motions to Inspect and Copy — Court’s Discretion. It is within the discretion of the trial judge to refuse an application to inspect and photograph a note, the subject of the controversy, under the statute; but the denial of such motion is without prejudice, for an affirmative order may nevertheless be rendered under conditions appearing to. the trial court to call for it.

Summary

Appeal by defendant from Qoohe, J., at January Term, 1914, of Wake. In tbis action, pending in the Superior Court of Wake County, before his 'Honor, C. M. Cooke, judge, the same issue being presented as to the forgery of the note sued on, application was made for an order to inspect and photograph the note in question, and the motion was denied by the court, “all without prejudice,” and defendants excepted and appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hoke

Hoke, J.

A perusal of the statute will disclose that the question rests in the sound legal discretion of the court, and, as we find no such abuse of discretion on the part of his Honor as to raise a legal question for our decision, the judgment is affirmed.

We deem it not improper to say that this ruling is not to be considered as a final disposition of the matter. It is one of th'ose questions which, for good reasons shown, may be renewed in the progress of the cause, and,’ if presented under different conditions, may call for a different decision. In any event, it is open to the parties in this instance, as the court has very properly made his ruling without prejudice.

There is no error, and the judgnent of the court is Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 8 cases

View all citing references →

State Highest Courts8

Relies on it most ⓘ

Star Manufacturing Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad23 S.E.2d 32 (N.C. 1942)
Tillis v. Calvine Cotton Mills, Inc.94 S.E.2d 600 (N.C. 1956)
H. L. Coble Construction Co. v. Housing Authority93 S.E.2d 98 (N.C. 1956)
R. R. v. Power Co.105 S.E. 28 (N.C. 1920)
Dunlap v. London Guaranty & Accident Co.163 S.E. 750 (N.C. 1932)
Evans v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.83 S.E. 617 (N.C. 1914)

Most recent

Tillis v. Calvine Cotton Mills, Inc.94 S.E.2d 600 (N.C. 1956)
H. L. Coble Construction Co. v. Housing Authority93 S.E.2d 98 (N.C. 1956)
Star Manufacturing Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad23 S.E.2d 32 (N.C. 1942)
Dunlap v. London Guaranty & Accident Co.163 S.E. 750 (N.C. 1932)
R. R. v. Power Co.105 S.E. 28 (N.C. 1920)
Salisbury & Spencer Railway Co. v. Southern Power Co.180 N.C. 422 (1920)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list