Case Name: Dickens vs. Ashe, Administrior de bonis non of Milner
Court: North Carolina Superior Court
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1802-04
Citations: 2 Hayw. 176
Docket Number: 
Parties: Dickens vs. Ashe, Administrior de bonis non of Milner.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 176–177

Head Matter:
Dickens vs. Ashe, Administrior de bonis non of Milner.
r?~,HE master reported a balance against the defendant; and ex;-reptions were taken, and now came on to lie argued. The case appeared to he this Alston gave two notes to one Swia-ney, who endorsed to the plaintiff, who put them in the hands of Milner, an attorney, to bring suit on ; the master received the evidence -of Alston, to prove that he (Alston) had paid the money to Milner. It was objected that Alston’s testimony was not admissible to prove that lact: if he established the fact, then, ke himself was discharged ; if he did not, Dickens might sue him and recover. Also it was argued, that this demand of Dickens .v.gainst Milner, was a demand at law, more especially if Alston n as a competent witness ; for he could prove by him the receipt of the money by Milner, which would maintain an action for money had and received.

Opinion:
Taylor, Judge,
(after a lengthy argument.) — If I make a mistake in giving judgment, it. caunei be said I nave done so without the assistance of counsel. Much time has be consumed. The witness is competent to prove the fact he was adduced to prove. If he establishes the fact he was adduced to prove, still foe may be sued by Dickens for the contents of the notes j and this recovery against Milner, tffected by hi:; testimony, cannot be given in evidence for him. As to the other point, I admit that sio submission of the parties can i*ive jurisdiction to a court; and consequently, submitting to an answer, will not; yet if the court orders an account to be taken, and a report is made and exceptions taken and set for argument, it is ico late then to say that the demand is merely legal, and to move for « dismission of the bill. The cases which have been read, of dismissing a bill after answer, appear to have been where the answer has been brought on upon bill and answer; no case has been offered of a dismission after s. report made in pursuance of an imtrtecutory decree.
§lnere de hoc»
Haywood.