Anson County NcArchives Court.....Johnson, Vs. Knight 1811-18 ************************************************ Copyright. All rights reserved. http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm ************************************************ File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by: Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 June 12, 2008, 11:23 pm Source: North Carolina Reports Written: 1811-18 JANUARY TERM 1813. WILLIAM JOHNSON, Assignee, etc., v. MOSES KNIGHT and RICHARD KNIGHT. From Anson. A gave his bond to B, and C became the subscribing witness. B assigned the bond to C, who sued A. The general issue being pleaded, C was nonsuited, because he had become interested in the case by his own voluntary act, and could not give evidence to prove the execution of the bond. And the court would not receive inferior evidence of its execution, such as the acknowledgment of A that he had given the bond, and that he would pay it. The evidence of the subscribing witness is dispensed with in case of marriage, or in favor of executors or administrators, from necessity, and in furtherance of justice. The special case was this: Johnson, the plaintiff, was the subscribing witness to the bond on which this action of debt was brought; and on the trial he proved that the defendants had acknowledged the execution of the bond; that one of them had promised to pay it, and the other had said he expected to have it to pay, and if would ruin him. The question submitted to this Court was, whether this was a sufficient proof of the execution of the bond. Locke, J. It has already been decided by this Court, and between this plaintiff and the defendants, that it is improper to receive evidence of the handwriting of the subscribing witness, who was the plaintiff and had taken a voluntary assignment of the bond in question. The case is again submitted upon another question, to wit, whether the acknowledgment of the defendants, that they had given the bond and would pay it, be legal and proper evidence to be left to a jury to prove its execution. This point is expressly decided in Abbott v. Plumb, Doug., 216, 217, and in Cunliffe v. Houghton, 2 East, 187. Lawrence, J., in delivering his opinion in this last case, decided in 1802, repeals this as a general principle of law: And although the evidence of the subscribing witness may be dispensed with, in cases of marriage, or in favor of executors or administrators, from necessity and in furtherance of justice, yet no case has been found where it has been dispensed with by reason of the subscribing witness becoming assignee. Let a nonsuit be entered. Additional Comments: North Caroline Reports, Vol. 6, Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of North Carolina, Reported by A.D. Murphey, Annotated by Walter Clark. 1811 to 1813, Inclusive and at July Term, 1818. Reprinted by the State. E.M. Uzzell and Company, State printers and binders, 1910. File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/anson/court/johnson551gwl.txt This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/ncfiles/ File size: 3.2 Kb