The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1902-04-29
Suprme Court Decisions.
(Reported by Jos. l.. Seawell.)

(Reported by Jos. l.. Seawell.)
BRINKLEY V. SMITH, appellant. From
Columbus.
The Supreme Court will enforce Rule
10 CD requiring marginal references in
the transcripts of appeals and such rule
is held to embrace the duty of number
ing exceptions, but marginal references,
if desired, may be printed as sub-heads.
SPRINGS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY
COMPANY, appellants. From Neck
lenburg. Affirmed.
A corporations petition for removal OF
a cause to the Federal Court upon the
ground of diversity of citizenship is ia
tally defective if it fails to specifically
allege that the petitioner is a corpora
ton created under the laws of the State
where it claims citizenship.
OWENS ct al V. WILLIAMS ct al, appel
lants. From Sampson. Affirmed.
AS the Statute of Frauds does not ap-
ply to a declaration of trust, it may be
in parol.
Where AS land, sold under execution,
is purchased by 3 under a parol agree
ment that B is to convey to AS children
upon payment of purchase price to B.
and an additional amount due BIS wife
by A, without agreeing upon time when
A is to redeem; held that B is trustee
for the benefit of AS children and, oc-
cupying position Of mortgage in posses
sion, is liable for rents, and in such case
the Statute of Limitations does not run.
STATE V. MAULTSBY, appellant. From
Cumberland. No error.
A motion to set aside a verdict on ac-
count Of relationship between the prose-
cutting witness and a juror, which was
discovered after verdict, is in the discre-
ton of the trial judge and his ruling
thereon is not RENEWABLE.
1t is competent to corroborate a wit
ness, whose credibility has been attacked
upon cross-eXamination, to show by his
own testimony that soon after the occur
renee and before the proceeding began,
the witness made statements similar to
his testimony on the stand.
PHIFER, appellant V. FORD ct al. From
Union. Reversed.
In a proceeding by an administrator to
sell land to make assets, the only debt
alleged was a note under seal executed
February 8, 1874, due one day after date.
The maker of the note died in September.
1877, but there was no administration
until 1898, and this action was begun
within twelve months thereafter: held
that the debt is not barred. Code Sec
ton 164; Dunlap V. Henley, 80 N. c.. us;
Winslow V. Benton, at this term. Cope
land V. Collins. 126 N. C. $40, explained
and distinguished.
ARMSTRONG, appellant v. STEDMAN.
From New Hanover. Error.
In this proceeding to restrain the
sheriff of New Hanover and the Tax Col
49, IL - g y.r.1
lecting taxes under the Revenue Act of
1901, upon the ground that said act was
not passed in accordance with the provi-
sions of the Constitution, in that it was
not read in each House three several
times on three several days, and upon
other grounds, it is held, tina the trial
judge committed error in holding that
injunctive relief could not be invoked to
restrain the collection of taxes, even
where there was no denial of the allie
cation that the tax was void and Of no
effect" Hall V. Fayetteville, 115 N. C.
Isl and Railroad V. Reidsville, 1O9 n. C.
494, distinguished.
STATE V. BUCHANAN. appellant. From
Union. New trial.
Where, in an Indictment against q car
porter for larceny of money, the prose-
cutting witness testified that the money
was stolen between Atlanta, Ga, and
Monroe, N. c.; that he slept most of the
way between Atlanta and Monroe and did
not miss the money until he reached
Monroe; that only thirteen miles of the
distance he travelled was in North Car
olina, it was error to charge the jury
that IF defendant desires to avail him
self of the fact that the offence was COM
mitted in another State, it must be done
by proof offered by himself Defendant
was entitled to have the evidence that
the larceny was not committed in North
Carolina, submitted to the jury in con-
nection with his own evidence.
COOK, appellant V. AM. EX. BANK ct
al. From Dare. Error.
When this case was before the Supreme
Court at August term, 1901 129 n. 2.
149) 1T was decided that the plaintiff was
entitled to judgment by default and in
curry. When the case was heard in the
Superior Court upon certificate from Su-
Preme Court, the judge, upon motion of
defendants, allowed them to file an an
swer; held that it was not within the
discretion of the judge to allow an answer
to be filed after the time limited had
expired and when upon appeal this court
had decided that judgment should have
been rendered.
Panther Creek, April 25.-Ten cases Of
small poX are reported among the ne
grOeS in 4adkin Township. NEGROES who
had the disease attended a camp meeting
when the small pox had reached its erup-
tive stage and an epidemic is expected