The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-04-10

| y,
dag Is valid
The party injured by breach OF CON
tr"c TO sell, is not bound to an acton
for damages but may demand Speclli;
performance.
HUMPHREY GIBSON co. appellant, "
ROBINSON. ct al. From wayne. No
error.
An agent or trustee, undertaking a
sDecial business for another. cannot, ca
The subject of that trust act Tor his
benefit to the injury of the principal and
il the principal is prejudiced by failure
Of the agent to make full disclosure Of
IE,atcrial facts. the agent cannot recover
his commissions or damages in lea
thereof
Carter ct al, appellants V. WHITE.
From Currituck. New trial.
Tho effect of judgment declaring
that plaintiffs are entitled to fifty three
ffty-fourths of the land and defendants
to the balance thereof, is to possess the
parties as tenants in common.
final decree in partition works ar
le5toppel of record upon the parties there
TO- Armfeld " Moore, IA n. &. l5i
STATE V. HUNT, appellant. From Per
son. No error.
sufficient cooling time" is shown where
lit appeared that after an encounter ne
tween the prisoner and deceased in the
store deceased fled to his house about ~
wards away, and the prisoner lett the
store by another door and sought the de-
ceased and followed after him and struck
the fatal blow as the deceased was stag
gering'' in his porch.
No particular time is necessary to CON
stltute generalization. State V. Norwood,
I1l5 N. C. 791 and other cases.
The appropriate word to designate the
accused in a capital case is prisoner '
and not defendant
LACY, Treasurer, V. ARMOUR PACKING
Co. appellant From Buncombe. No
! error.
The tax imposed by Chapter SO Of the
Revenue Act of 1903 upon every packing
lhouse conducting business in this State,
| is tax only upon the lntra-State or do
nestle business of such corporation, and
mot upon It's Interstate business. and Is
constitutional.
The Legislature possesses the power tc
Iciassify subjects OF taxation and
statute which bears equally upon all per
sons belonging to the prescribed class on
(which the tax is imposed, does rot VIC
late the constitutional rule of un'fol nifty.
WEEKS V. WILKINS, appellant. From
Sampson. Error.
The entry Of a grant is not defective
for failure to copy the entire grant when
the entry, after giving the date, names
.. parties, number of acres and bouG.
diaries, states that the grant 'is in the
same form as aforesaid grants in this
book, pages l and q"
The deed of an infant, operating as it
does under our registration laws, by trans
mutation of possession, is voidable and
not void.
Where the remainderman in fee, af or
the termination of life estate, being IN
infant, Sues upon attaining his majority,
Ito recover against the grantee OF the life
| tenant who undertook to convey the Zee,
the institution of such suit is an act of
ldisaffirmance; but the act, to be atfectu-
al, must be within a reasonable time As
the statute gives the infant three years
after attaining his majority, to bring an
action against a disseisor, the court holds
that the same period is a reasonable time
within which to exercise his election to
affirm or disaffirm a deed OF the lille
tenant.
NEWTON, appellant, V. BROWN. From
Pender. Error.
Am entry of public land confers upon
the erterer merely an equity to call for
a grant upon complying with the require
ne nts of the statute and does not entitle
tile enterer before the issuance of his
grant, to interfere, by injunction with the
possession and use of the land by a
claimant thereof who shows 80 years
possession.
i Where complaint alleged ownership and
adverse possession o. land for more than
Il Years and wrongful entry and injury
TO timber trees by defendant and prayed
that defendant be enjoined from further
II espassing etc, and the answer alleged
title in the State to a portion OF the
lend and entries of such portion by de
Iferdant and denied plaintiffs title to the
portion entered by defendant as public
lands, and sought to enjoin plaintiff, etc,
it was error to enioin piaintiff from ex.
arrising ownership till the determination
OF the action
MCGOWAN V. DAVENPORT ct al, appel
lants. From Pitt. New trial.
In an action on the note of a deceased
peIson, against his wife and the trustee
III "a deed of trust given by the debtor
and his wife to secure the note, to lore
close said deed and to set aside its can
ceilatlon ON the registry, it was error to
pc rmit witness to testify that the de
ceased principal had told witness that
the debt had not been paid.
Where, in such case, the deed Of trust
conveyed the wifes separate property,
and the representative of her deceased
husband (the principal to the note Sc
cured by the trust deed) was not a party
to the action, the plaintiff was, notWith
standing, incompetent, under $50 OF The
Code, to testify that the note had not
beer paid. AS the defendant wife, in
such case, is surety for her husband,
tSnin V. Smith, 70 N. C. 310), and in
event CT recovery against her, will have
action against her husbands estate for ex-
oneration, any testimony which makes
galnst her Will affect the estate Of the
husband the deceased principal. Bryant
V. MOTIFS, 60 N. c. 444 approved
The surety of deceased principal
stands IN the same position and is entitled
% the same protection under $40 of The
Code, as the representative of the de-
Iceased principal