The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-02-22
Digest Of Opinions
By the Supreme Court.

! The following opinions have been
| handed down by the Supreme Court
| Hinton V. Insurance Company New
trial.
| Process from the tribunals of one State
cannot run into another State and sum
mon party there domiciled TO leave its
territory and respond to proceedings
against him. Pennoyer V. Neff, 50 L. :.
u. 727.
Service upon resident of this State of
! n copy of an order of Il foreign court
making HIM a party to am action pending
therein is Intellectual and void and where
upon the failure of the party so served
to appear, Judgment is rendered by the
| foreign court that he ''be forever barred
! OF any claim i'm respect TO the subject
matter Of the suit the party is not es-
topped thereby to prosecute the action
| in this State.
! Creole V. Ayers.
| % Upon yendee'S default in payment
an action of ejectment can be brought
/ at election of vender joining or not join
ing i'll a demand for sale.
! q, In such action, as in all other ac-
mesnc profits may be recovered UP 10
the trial.
/ CD If defendant SurTcndcrs premises
pending action he is still liable for mesne
profits up to surrender.
ti) Where there is q mortgage ON the
property executed by the vendors which
is foreclosed pending litigation, the rents
and profits up to foreclosure sale belong
! to the vendors, the defendant in eject
ment is not released from liability for
meSne profits by the foreclosure
% Where exceptions are taken that q
referee did not pass upon certain evil
dence it is competent for the Judge to
find the facts in regard to them in re-
j viewing the referees report.
90 1t is not competent in passing upon
| the rental value of a tract Of land 10
admit evidence of the rental value of
neighborng tracts as that would raise
collateral issues Warren V. Makely.
! So ~ G. II.
Hinton V. Pritchard. Affirmed
I Action upon a promissory note is not
! barred by reason of the payee'S failure to
file il with the executor of the maker
thereof as required by Section 164 of
The Code, where the executor has made
payments upon the note which brings
it within the statutory period. JOS \. {.
/ 81; 123 y C., go.
\ Judgment against the personal rep
rcsentativc will conclude the heir or de-
| visee in the absence Of fraud or cOlil-
sion, 81 y. G. $50.
State V. Hcttrick. Judgment arrested.
\ warrant charging one with creating
! a disturbance in the public streets with
out stating how or i'll what manner the
! disturbance was created, is fatally de-
| fectivc.
State V. Gallop. Affirmed.
NO one has property in game" um
the animals thus denOminatcd have been
reduced to possession; - kent's Com.
| Sth. Ed-+16 Cooley on TOrts. 4}5:
| State V. House. G5 y. c. 315) and the
| right off land owners to prevent Others
| from hunting upon their soil is mot by
! virtue OF their ownership of the game
| thereuIOn but is founded upon their right
| to prevent tresspassing upon their land.
! The ownership Of game being in the
people of the State the Legislature may
withhold or grant TO individuals the right
TO hunt and kill game. or qualify or re-
strict it and the State may confG- eX-
elusive right of fishing and hunting upon
its own citizens and exclude norl-reSi-
dents. without violating Section Article
~ Of the L. s. Constitution. "a I. =.
391.
The owners of land bordering upon Il
public waterway cannot legally prevent
ether citizens of the State from shooting
ducks in said waterway and where such
land owners employ one 10 Interfere and
prevent persons from decoylng ducks IN
the waterway adjacent to their land the
person so employed is guilty of a INSIDE
meanor as provided in Chapter 29l. laws
1897.
Chapter 2D1. Laws of 1897, providing
that 1T shall he unlawful for amy person
hired or employed to lay around. sail
around or stop anywhere near amy citl-
zen. who may he cunning or fishing III
Currituck Sound or tributaries, fer the
purpose of keeping him from shooting
on damage his shooting or fishing. etc.
! is not unconstitutional. Br0adfooot V,
, Fayetteville, 121. n. c. AIS; State V.
T., Jones. ibid 616 State V. Commissioners.
) to5 y. G..
! Clark Y. Moore. Affirmed.
The plaintiff was present and permitted
the defendant to survey the land IN con
trcversy and did not assert his title there
to: Held. that the plaintiff is not eStoppel
thereby to deny the defendant tltle.
As ''stakes" in the calls of a deed are
not sufficient as monuments CT title ly
reasom of their unfxedness Reed v
{ Schenck IA y. C. 60 "lightwood stakes
| are equally inefficient But where such
| calls are at or near natural objects. also
named in the boundary. which enable the
! calls to he located this amounts TO per
manency which may render the descrlp-
tion in the deed sufficient. especially
when aided by Il statement in the deco
giving the definite amount of land CON
ycycd and the course and distance of the
first line and the courses of all the lines.