The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-11-02
Supreme Court Digest.
CReported by JOS. L. seawell)

| Mecklenburg. Affirmed.
/ Where a Judgment is docketed, when
| is lien on the reversion in the nome
| stead and an action is brought on the
judgment, the second judgment thus Cd
tanned does not merge the first SO as 10
destroy the lien.
| WILSON, appellant VS. LUMBER COM
| PANY From Pitt. No error.
Where a jury trial was waived ana the
| facts found by the court and judgment
rendered, no exception is necessary, the
appeal being Of itself an exception TO
the judgment
But where there is objection to evil
| dence to the charge, etc, an eXcep-
| ton must be specifically taken
| An exception to the charge can be
taken for the first time in appellants
statement of the case on appeal. though
it must be specific and not broadside.
! The appellate court will take notice Of
| errors appearing on the face of the
record, such as defects in the summons,
etc, without assignment Of error. Rule
q of this court.
money judgment cannot be made a
lien as to portions not set out in the
| docketing thereof.
Where a judgment for $223 means
profits and partition and $5019 costs,
| was recorded in full on the minute
docket, but in the judgment as docketed
| and indexed the 1925 was omitted, but
| contained a reference to the judgment as
| recorded on the minute docket and nine
years thereafter the clerk. after the eX
piration of his term. upon request of
| plaintiff and without notice to defendant,
entered the omitted portion of the judg4
ment on the judgment docket it was
| held that the judgment was not lien
! for the $225 omitted Reference TO the
minute docket was sufficient notice TO
purchaser as to matter which did not
affect the title or direct the payment
of money" 108 N. 100; 100 N. c. 935,
Where the lien of Judgment has ex-
PRED by the lapse of ten years, it is not
| revived by allotment of the debtors
| homestead after that time Execution
on revived judgment has lien only from
its levy
| FOWLER V. FOWLER, appellant. From
| Moore. Action dismissed.
! Where, according to the law of the
| domicile of the parent, their bastard
child is legitimated by their subsequent
| marriage. the legitimacy attaches and
| will be recognized by the courts of this
State.
LoFTIN V. HILL. appellant From
Lenoir. New trial.
| The holder of a negotiable note is pre-
sumed to be the owner and that he re-
ceived it before maturity for a valuable
| consideration in the usual course of
business, such presumption being subject
to rebuttal and the evidence in this case
| should have been admitted for that pur-
pose.
In an action by the assignee of a note
/ by the maker, evidence tending to show
| that the payee, a stranger in the COM
munty and known to the assignee to be
| engaged in some sort of business, was
engaged in a fraudulent business and
| had defrauded another person, which
was known to the assignee before he
bought the note in suit. is admissible to
| show circumstances to put the assignee
| on his guard. Holmsley V. Hogue AZ \.
| c., 398; withdrew V. Biggerstaff, 81 y. c.
| 17S and Winborne V. Lassiter. 80 y. C.
! /. cited and distinguished.
| PICKETT v GARRARD appellant.
From Durham. New trial
deed conveying land to Martha ].
and w. w Garrard, their heirs" vests
the fee in them as tenants in common.
The relation of loco PARENTS creates a
lnEritorioub consideration upon which
equity will give relief; and the defendant
here, being the natural son of the grantor
had the right to show in evidence that
such parental relation existed between
him and the grantor and then to show
grounds for reformation of the deed.
STATE V. BLACKLEY. appellant. From
Granville. New trial.
Questions of good faith, of negligence
or reasonable care, or the truth or
falsity of a witnesses evidence, are mat
ters for the jury and not for the court
On trial of an Indictment for escape
under section 1922 of the Code, where
the evidence of the defendant was to the
effect that a crowd was coming to lynch
the prisoner in his custody and to pre-
vent this he went into hiding for the
night, and that he was set upon by
taken from him and he himself ordered
TO keep quiet under threats of death
and at the conclusion of the evidence
the judge told defendants counsel that
if defendants evidence was believed he
was guilty, and so charged the jury.
Held error for which a new trial will
be granted
MORRIS V. INSURANCE COMPANY. ap-
pellant From Durham. No error.