From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Farrell v. Perry

Superior Court of North Carolina
Mar 1, 1791
2 N.C. 2 (N.C. Super. 1791)

Opinion

(March Term, 1791.)

If a father, at the time of the daughter's marriage, puts a negro or other chattel into the possession of the son-in-law, it is prima facie a gift. Interest in the event of the question, but not of the cause, will not exclude a witness.


If a father, at the time of his daughter's marriage, puts a negro or other chattel into the possession of the son-in-law, it is in law a gift, unless the contrary can be proven. For, otherwise, creditors might be drawn in by false appearances. In this case it was ruled, per curiam, that a man interested in the event of the question on which the defendant's title hangs, though not in the event of the cause, must be admitted as a witness, contra, Reeves and Symonds, and the cases there cited. If we begin to exclude from testimony for bias, we shall be without a rudder or a polar star to direct us — for friendship, resentment, religious opinions, sense of honor in different men, etc., are to be considered, in order to find out the bias which will probably be in each witness, and of these the Court cannot know anything in most instances. It is best to adhere to the ancient rule, that interest shall alone exclude.

Cited: Parker v. Phillips, post, 452; Hollowell v. Skinner, 26 N.C. 172.


Summaries of

Farrell v. Perry

Superior Court of North Carolina
Mar 1, 1791
2 N.C. 2 (N.C. Super. 1791)
Case details for

Farrell v. Perry

Case Details

Full title:FARRELL v. PERRY

Court:Superior Court of North Carolina

Date published: Mar 1, 1791

Citations

2 N.C. 2 (N.C. Super. 1791)

Citing Cases

West v. Dubberly

Upon no ground, therefore, can the verdict be supported, but must be set aside and a nonsuit entered. NOTE. —…

Starkey's v. McClure

The Court, WILLIAMS, J., and McCOY, J., allowed the objection. NOTE. — See Ferrel v. Perry, ante, 25, and the…