(a) On the trial of any issue, or of any matter or question, or on any inquiry arising in any action, suit or other proceeding in court, or before any judge, justice, jury or other person having, by law, authority to hear and examine evidence, the parties themselves and the person in whose behalf any suit or other proceeding may be brought or defended, shall, except as otherwise provided, be competent and compellable to give evidence, either viva voce or by deposition, according to the practice of the court, in behalf of either or any of the parties to said action, suit or other proceeding. Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to any action or other proceeding in any court instituted in consequence of adultery, or to any action for criminal conversation.
(b), (c). Repealed by Session Laws 1967, c. 954, s. 4. (1866, c. 43, ss. 2, 3; Code, s. 1351; Rev., s. 1630; C.S., s. 1793; 1953, c. 885, s. 1; 1967, c. 954, s. 4.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 1965–2004 · leading case:
In re Shepard, 591 S.E.2d 1 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004).
In re Shepard, 591 S.E.2d 1 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004).
“Respondent cites no authority to support this argument, but contends that “sound policy” should exclude such testimony. We are not aware of any restrictions on the competency of guardians ad litem as witnesses in trials involving their wards.”
State v. Wright, 163 S.E.2d 897 (N.C. 1968).
“There is no contention that after this jury list was so compiled by these ladies any discriminatory elimination of names occurred.”
Powell v. Cross, 140 S.E.2d 393 (N.C. 1965).
“…and compelled them to testify and could have cross-examined them, and could also have contradicted their testimony. G.S. 8-50. Affirmed.”
Jeffries v. Moore, 559 S.E.2d 217 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 5× “In addition, the trial court found, “[t]he minor child, Mikala [sic], appears to be [of] a mixed ancestry, including African-American ancestry. Mikala [sic] resembles the Plaintiff and does not resemble Defendant Carl Moore, Jr.”
State ex rel. Bright v. Flaskrud, 559 S.E.2d 286 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-50 .l(bl) requires the trial court to grant a motion for blood tests in “any civil action in which the question of parentage arises.”
In the Matter of Farmer, 299 S.E.2d 262 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983).
“8-49; G.S. 8-50; and 1 Bran-dis on North Carolina Evidence, §§ 53 and 54.”
Columbus Cnty. ex rel. Brooks v. Davis, 592 S.E.2d 225 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Because the doctor had neither drawn the blood nor had any personal knowledge of the blood sample’s chain of custody, this Court held that *68 [pjlaintiff therefore failed to establish the relevancy of the blood test results under either section 8-50. l(bl) or Lombroia and it…”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-50(bl): 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.