Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

3 N.C. 132

Allen v. Jordan.

Superior Court of North Carolina · decided 1801-07-05

TORDAN had given a note for payment of money, to Allen * ** which note was taken by the brother of Allen as his agent: he had been requested by Allen to subscribe his name as a witness to the note, but neglected to do so at the time of the execution : He did so afterwards and at another day.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1801-07-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently April 1933

6 state decisions

3018011810182018301840185018601870188018901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Taylor, Judge

¶1 This is a material alteration ©f the note : suppose it were given on a condition known to the first subscribing witness, and then a suit were commenced, and the second subscribing witness summoned for the plaintiff to prove it. He may not know any thing of the condition, being not the witness called by the parties to attest: of course he will prove the note and, and the plaintiff will recover, notwithstanding the com dition.

¶2 The jury however, found for the plaintiff; and Judge Taylor being moved for a new trial, refused it on the ground that the verdict was according to the equity of the case: the motion was opposed on the ground that this was a new trial, and that a second new trial should not be granted against two concurring verdicts.

/3/nc/132 · .json · Public domain