{
  "id": 8548993,
  "name": "CARTERET COUNTY GENERAL HOSPITAL CORPORATION, d/b/a CARTERET GENERAL HOSPITAL v. THESSALLY H. MANNING and wife, EDITH MANNING",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carteret County General Hospital Corp. v. Manning",
  "decision_date": "1973-05-23",
  "docket_number": "No. 733DC161",
  "first_page": "298",
  "last_page": "300",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "18 N.C. App. 298"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "194 S.E. 2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "7"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 N.C. 610",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568004
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "619"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/282/0610-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 297",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "307"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 N.C. 390",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560580
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "411"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/278/0390-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 302,
    "char_count": 4368,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.517,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6571395197385864e-07,
      "percentile": 0.693699709905867
    },
    "sha256": "04ac0933332b849aa72c66f62c6f4394d6d0238496ba59bf33cdd0dae3633480",
    "simhash": "1:b981f7355c9c1c61",
    "word_count": 736
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:14:36.293491+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Brock and Britt concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CARTERET COUNTY GENERAL HOSPITAL CORPORATION, d/b/a CARTERET GENERAL HOSPITAL v. THESSALLY H. MANNING and wife, EDITH MANNING"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nThis appeal presents for resolution the question of whether the trial court erred in granting defendants\u2019 \u201cmotion for non-suit\u201d at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence.\n\u201cWhen the new rules of Civil Procedure became effective on 1 January 1970, the word nonsuit was banished from our civil practice. In nonjury trials the motion for nonsuit has been replaced by the motion for a dismissal, G.S. 1A-1, Rule 41(b) .... \u201d Cutts v. Casey, 278 N.C. 390, 411, 180 S.E. 2d 297, 307 (1971).\nRule 41 (b) in pertinent part provides:\n\u201cAfter the plaintiff, in an action tried by the court without a jury, has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant, without waiving his right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. The court as trier of the facts may then determine them and render judgment against the plaintiff or may decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence. If the court renders judgment on the merits against the plaintiff, the court shall make findings as provided in Rule 52 (a).\u201d\nRule 52(a) (1) provides:\n\u201cIn all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its concusions of law thereon and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment.\u201d\nThe requirement that findings of fact be made by the trial judge is \u201c \u2018 intended to aid the appellate court by affording it a clear understanding of the basis of the trial court\u2019s decision, and to make definite what was decided for purpose of res judicata and estoppel. Finally, the requirement of findings should evoke care on the part of the trial judge in ascertaining the facts.\u2019 Wright, Lem of Federal Courts \u00a7 96, at 428-29 (1970). See also 9 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure \u00a7 2371, at 222 (1971).\u201d Helms v. Rea, 282 N.C. 610, 619, 194 S.E. 2d 1, 7 (1973).\nIn their briefs both parties argue whether plaintiff\u2019s claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Obviously, we cannot resolve this question because the facts relative thereto have not yet been found by the trial court.\nSince the order dismissing plaintiff\u2019s claim is not supported by findings of fact as required by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 41(b), the judgment appealed from is vacated and the cause is remanded to the district court for a\nNew trial.\nJudges Brock and Britt concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wheatly & Mason by L. Patten Mason for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Hamilton, Hamilton & Phillips by Luther Hamilton, Jr., for defendant appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CARTERET COUNTY GENERAL HOSPITAL CORPORATION, d/b/a CARTERET GENERAL HOSPITAL v. THESSALLY H. MANNING and wife, EDITH MANNING\nNo. 733DC161\n(Filed 23 May 1973)\nRules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 41\u2014 nonjury trial \u2014 dismissal of claim \u2014 failure to find facts\nThe trial court in a nonjury trial erred in dismissing plaintiff\u2019s claim at the close of its evidence on the basis of the statute of limitations without making findings of fact as required by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 41(b).\nAppeal by plaintiff from Phillips, Judge, 24 October 1972 Session of District Court held in Carteret County.\nThis is a civil action instituted by plaintiff, Carteret County General Hospital Corporation, doing business as Carteret General Hospital, on 13 March 1972 to recover of defendants, Thessally H. Manning and wife, Edith Manning, $975.10 for expenses incurred by the feme defendant while a patient at plaintiff hospital during the period 26 October through 13 December 1968. Trial was before the judge without a jury.\nThe record reveals the following occurred at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence:\n\u201cMr. Hamilton : Defendant moves for nonsuit, if it please the Court. Motion argued on the basis of the statute of limitations.\nCourt : I think you are entitled to your motion. I am going to allow it and let you enter your exceptions.\u201d\nThereupon, the trial court entered the following judgment:\n\u201cThis matter came on for hearing before the undersigned Judge presiding, sitting without a Jury, and at the close of the Plaintiff\u2019s evidence motion having been duly made by the Defendant for nonsuit, and the Court being of the opinion that such motion should be allowed, It Is Thereupon\nOrdered: That this action be dismissed and that the Plaintiff be taxed with the costs.\u201d\nPlaintiff appealed.\nWheatly & Mason by L. Patten Mason for plaintiff appellant.\nHamilton, Hamilton & Phillips by Luther Hamilton, Jr., for defendant appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0298-01",
  "first_page_order": 322,
  "last_page_order": 324
}