Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

49 N.C. 123

Brown v. . Brown

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 5, 1856

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1856-12-05

This was an aotioN of COVENANT, tried before MaNly, J., at a Special Term (June, 1856,) of Orange Superior Court. The instrument declared on is as follows: “ Know all men by these presents, that we, John Brown, Vm.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1856-12-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1976

3 state decisions

101856186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

Pearson, J.

¶1 The object of the reference was to settle the estate of Wm. Brown, dec’d., and by a proper construction of the bond it extends to all matters and things for, and on account of which, the defendant was liable, as executor, and in which the parties, who were children of the testator, were interested. The negro man, Stephen, had belonged to the testator. It was contended on the one side, that he belonged to the testator at the time of his death, and constituted a part of his estate, for which the defendant was liable to account ; on the other, it was contended that he did not belong to the testator at the time of his death, but had been transferred to one Polly Brison, who had transferred him to the defendant. Here was a matter of controversy, the settlement of which was necessary in order to settle the estate of the tes *127 tator, and which constituted, in fact, a part of the settlement of the estate. We concur with his Honor in the opinion that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers.

¶2 There can be no doubt that the testimony of the witness Moore, was competent. Parol evidence is not only admissible, but necessary, in order to.show what matters the arbitrators acted on. So, upon a plea of-former judgment, how can it be told whether the cause of action was the same or not, without proof as to the subject of the former trial ? There is no error.

¶3 Pjek CueiaM. Judgment affirmed.

/49/nc/123 · .json · Public domain