3 N.C. 379
Superior Court of North Carolina
Decided January 5, 1806
Superior Court of North Carolina · decided 1806-01-05
T^EBT upon a bond, with condition, stating that defendant bad sold several warrants to the plaintiff; ard ihat if any of them were bad, that the defendant, on request, would give ere® dit on the note which Pearse had given fca the considi ration money, to the amount of the value, &c. The pleas were conditions performed and non est factum.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1820
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1806-01-05
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1 The record ought to be read, but can prove no more than that the plaintiff did not recover. It will not be of itself, proof that Joseph Pearse had tide.
¶2 The record tvas read, and Judge Hall directed the jury that the plaintiff should have proved Joseph Pearse’s title ; and that he had not done so, for the record was not evidence of that j and the plaintiff hearing the opinion of the court, suffered
¶3 A nonsuit.