From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

YO-NA-GUS-KEE v. Coleman

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jun 1, 1824
10 N.C. 174 (N.C. 1824)

Opinion

June Term, 1824.

When a document is offered in evidence, purporting to have subscribed thereto the name of a public agent, his signature must be proved.

THIS case was in all respects similar to the last, except that in this case plaintiff, at the time of the ratification of the treaty of 1819, was living on the land contained within the lines of his survey.


An objection was taken on the trial below to the certificates of R. J. Meigs and Colonel Houston, because there was no proof that they were executed by the persons whose acts they purported to be; but the objection was overruled.


The certificate of enrollment according to the treaty ought to have been proved like any other documentary evidence. We do not know that R. J. Meigs has really signed the paper; it is not made evidence by law any more than the certificate of any other individual. There must be a

PER CURIAM. New trial.

(175)


Summaries of

YO-NA-GUS-KEE v. Coleman

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jun 1, 1824
10 N.C. 174 (N.C. 1824)
Case details for

YO-NA-GUS-KEE v. Coleman

Case Details

Full title:DOE ON DEMISE OF YO-NA-GUS-KEE v. COLEMAN. — From Buncombe

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Jun 1, 1824

Citations

10 N.C. 174 (N.C. 1824)

Citing Cases

Long v. Logan

And this decision is approved in University v. Lassiter, 83 N.C. 38. See also Johnson v. Rowland, 80 N.C. 1;…