The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-06-15
Supreme Court DeCiOnsis
(Reportcd by Jos. l.. Seawcll)


BARGER vs.. CITY OF HICKORY, APPEL
liant. Error.
Where a city constructs sewer to be
used exclusively by hotel and the sewer
afterwards becomes a nuisance the city
cannot be held responsible in damages
therefor.
LEWIS VS.. OVERLY ct al, appellants
From Stokes Affirmed.
Exception to report of commissioners
under Il consent reference, that the ind
ings of fact were contrary TO the weight
CT the evidence" viii not be entertained:
Lut an exception that there was no cv-
dcnce to support the finding will be
considered
The test Of suficicncy Of possession to
mature title depends unon whether the
acts of dominion by the colorado claim
ant have been such as to make him liable
To an action of Ciectmcnt
GRAHAM, Receiver, VS.. CARR and MAN
MING. From Durham. Error.
bona fidc sale Cf its property by an
insolvCnt corporation to enc of it's stock
holders is valid. But where in such case
the proceeds of the sale are applied in
payment of a debt Of the corporation
to which the purchasing stakeholder was
surety the law Will not allow him to re-
tain tho advantage derived by such appli-
cation. but will hold him liable to other
creditors of the insolvent corporation for
the amount of the debt to which he was
surety for the corporation and which was
paid from the proceeds of his purchase.
SIMS. Sheriff. VS.. N. G. W. r. R. CO, ap-
pellant. From Person. No error.
Whore n SOWING machine &c cbippod NV
a resident of Illinois to a resident of this
State, the bill of lading providing that
the machine is not to be delivered till
payment of the purchase price; Held to
be an cXecutOry contract in Illinois and
a sale in North Carolina upon payment
of the purchase price; and it appearing
that the shippers had made several sim
liar deliveries of sewing machines in this
State, they arc liable for the license tax
provided by chapter ., section 50. Laws
Of 1901, ard the machine was properly
levied on by the sheriff for the payment
of such license tax.
STATE, appellant, VS.. BRIGGS. From
Forsyth. Reversed.
Separate offences arc created by sec
tion 101 of tho Revenue Act of 1901, MAX
ing it misdemeanor for any person,
firm, etc, to fail or refuse to pay the
tax created by schedules p and C when
demanded by tho sheriff; and section 103
CT the same Act providing that every
person who shall practice any trade or
profession. etc, without having paid tho
tax and obtained n license as required
by this Act shall be guilty or misdo
meanor. etc. ard Shall also pay a pen
atty of fifty dollars" ETC.;
Therefore held in an Indictment for I'M
lawfully engaging in the business of NOR
chandiZing without license, that it was
error to hold defendant not guilty unon
special verdict finding that from May
j. 1901. till the indictment in February
1902, TIE defendant was a merchant and
had not till after Indictment taken out
the license required by said section 103;
that no demand was made on defendant
for the tax as required in section 100
If tho Act, and that defendant had no
knowledge of the law requiring him to
ray tax.
CRATER VS.. RYAN, appellant. From For
syth Error
81 devise ana bcqucath to my beloved
wife c all my real estate, personal prop
crty. except the mill, and tho mill may
be sold and tho interest Of tho money
she NAV have Of tho mill, and all my
other property I will to nv wife as
long as she lives and after her death
all shall be sold and then go to her
heirs" The question raised is-shall tho
executor nay taxes upon tho mill fund
"out of tho interest" and pay the resi-
duo Of the interest to c.: or. shall he raw
her all the interest and pay the taxes
out OF Part of tho principal sum? Held
that the tcstator intended his wife to
have the entire interest upon the fund
realized from the sale of the mill-citing
Wilson VS.. White, 10 l.. r. A.
STATE VS.. FL EMING AND RLANTON,
appellants. From Rowan. No error.
Upon the question of circumstantial cvi~
dence the prisoner asked the court 10
charge that every link must be proved
beyond a reasonable doubt and the court
told the jury that before tho State can
rely upon circumstantal evidence, cit
must establish every circumstantial fact
rpon which it relies. beyond reasonable
doubt" Held. 10 error-following the rule
announced in State VS., Crane 10 n. G.
53s. and State VS.. Shines. 125 n. c. $50.
Exceptions to evidence Of prisoners