{ "id": 8649924, "name": "C. A. MULL and others v. P. J. WALKER and others", "name_abbreviation": "Mull v. Walker", "decision_date": "1888-02", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "46", "last_page": "51", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "100 N.C. 46" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "88 N C., 468", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8683299 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/88/0468-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 N. C., 181", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273262 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/86/0181-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Jones Eq., 18", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Jones Eq.", "case_ids": [ 8683651 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/54/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Ired. Eq., 478", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ired. Eq.", "case_ids": [ 8682400 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/37/0480-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 N. C., 149", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8649617 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/96/0149-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 566, "char_count": 10419, "ocr_confidence": 0.506, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.566985080657644e-08, "percentile": 0.3499034113571872 }, "sha256": "c787704186fcaf7c7fe85ac4cc56a3c921bd223b6cdb155a4dbab95208e808a3", "simhash": "1:6536e90287221d2c", "word_count": 1783 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:59:04.640355+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "C. A. MULL and others v. P. J. WALKER and others." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Smith, C. J.\nThe case made in the complaint, is this:\nOne Job Hicks, the first husband of the defendant Eliza, removed in 1851, without his family, to California, and soon after died. Administration on his estate was, on November 24th, 1853, committed to the defendant, Peter J. Walker, with whom his surviving widow had intermarried, and took possession of the intestate\u2019s personal estate.\nThe present action, begun on May 21st, 1886, is prosecuted by the intestate\u2019s two surviving daughters, Mary Jane and Martha, with their husbands, A. J. Cooper, the husband of a deceased daughter, and their infant children, against the defendant Peter J. Walker and wife, and Joseph Brittain, to recover judgment for their distributive shares, and to pursue a part of the trust fund alleged to have been invested in a tract of land sold to said Peter by the last named defendant, the title to which he retains, and subject the land to their claim, as well as the rents and profits derived by the administrator therefrom.\nThe complaint further alleges that the infant daughters all married while under age.\nThe answer admits the allegations of the complaint in regard to the death of the said Job Hicks, and the issue of letters of administration to him, as well as his taking-possession of the personal propertj^, but alleges that he has used the same, and more, in the support of the children, while living with him before marriage, to-wit: for the several periods of 15, 14, and 8 years, and denies the purchase and payment of the land to have been made with the moneys or funds of the trust estate.\nIt moreover sets up the defence of the statute of limitations, and the lapse of the long period of time since the issue of letters of administration, as a bar to the relief asked.\nThe defendant Joseph Brittain admits his sale of the land and reception of full payment, and submits to make title to whomsoever the Court may direct.\nThere was a replication, denying the debt denominated a counter-claim, its validity, as such, in the present suit, and interposing the statutory bar, if it ever existed.\nAt March term, 1887, of Burke Superior Court, a \u201c restraining order,\u201d the terms of which are not set out in the record, was issued, and the cause tried at the next term, before a jury, upon issues, in which they find, that the infant daughters of the intestate each married before attaining their majority, and that the land in dispute was not bought with money belonging to the estate of the intestate; and thereupon judgment was rendered against the defendant Peter Walker for the sum admitted, in his inventory, filed on February 22,1855, to be the value of the personal estate, reduced by debts paid and commissions, and mentioned in the judgment; from which the defendant appeals.\nAfter the empaneling of the' jury, and the reading of the pleadings, the Court expressed, or, as the case states, intimated an opinion, against the counter-claim, as it is called, on the two-fold ground, that it is personal to the defendant, while the action is against him in his capacity as administrator, and that the law raised no contract, on account of the relations of the parties, of indebtedness on the part of the infant distributees to pay expenses incurred in their support while members of the family. Without exception thereto, but in consequence of this intimation of intended ruling, no evidence in support of this part of the defence was offered.\nThe defendant insisted upon the statutory bar and the presumption, arising from the lapse of time, of payment or abandonment of the present demand, and further, that the action would not lie until \u201c the filing of a final account.\u201d The Court ruled against the defence under the statute and refused the motion to dismiss the action on account of the delay in bringing the suit. These rulings are involved in the appeal and are to be here reviewed and the law declared.\nIf the refusal to entertain the demand for a reduction of the plaintiffs\u2019 claim by the sums expended in their necessary support, out of their or his own funds, not strictly a counterclaim, but a diminution of the defendants\u2019 liability, had no other support than the first reason assigned for its rejection, we should be reluctant, if we did not refuse, to give our sanction to the ruling.\nThere is no want of mutuality in the relation of the claim. The plaintiffs\u2019 demand is against the defendant personally, for an estate wasted and misapplied by his individual conduct, and the execution upon the judgment would run against his own property only. Where the judgment and execution are against him upon a liability incurred by the intestate (or testator, as the case may be), it is against him in his representative capacity, and satisfaction is to be made out of the goods of the deceased.\nBut the second ground assigned for disallowing the defence, in the form in which it was presented to the Court, is tenable \u2022\u2022and quite sufficient. No liability is incurred upon an implied .contract, where the parties, as in this case, constitute one family and are provided for in common. Hussey v. Rountree, Busb., 110; Dodson v. McAdams, 96 N. C., 149; Barnes v. Ward, Busb. Eq., 93.\nIf, however, the step-father, or even the father, has not means of his own, and has in his hands funds belonging to them, which he employs in their necessary maintenance, he would be allowed to retain so much as does not exceed accruing interest, and be accountable for what remains, not as a contract, but as a lawful disbursement.\nBut these modifying circumstances are not suggested, to exempt the claim from the operation of the rule, that excludes the inference of an implied contract, which would be drawn if no such family relations existed. Walker v. Crowder, 2 Ired. Eq., 478.\nBut we do not concur in the opinion and consequent ruling against the defence, growing out of the long lapse of time since the cause of action existed and the bringing of the suit.\nLetters of administration issued in 1853, two years after which the administrator could have been called to an account and settlement. The suit was not brought until nearly thirty-one years had passed, and if the time during which all legal and statutory presumptions are drawn from its lapse be deducted, there would still remain about 22 years of inaction. The statute then in force, Rev. Code, ch. 65, \u00a7\u00a7 18 and 19, restricts the period to ten years, after which all contracts, unrecognized as binding during the intermediate space, are presumed to have been satisfied, and all \u201c equitable interests,\u201d after \u201cthe right of action shall have accrued on any equitable interest or claim;\u201d are presumed to have been, in like manner, paid or abandoned.\nNow, there is no saving clause in this .enactment, made to quiet controversies, and prevent the presentation of stale demands, or exception in favor of infants or femes covert, and hence the cumulative disabilities, which prevent the starting of the statute limiting the time in which other actions are to be brought, have no application here. Hamlin v. Mebane, 1 Jones Eq., 18; Hodges v. Council, 86 N. C., 181; Headen v. Womack, 88 N C., 468.\nThe answer of the defendant Walker, whom we refer to when using the word, inasmuch as he is the only contestant party, itself demands a reference and accotmt, the ordinary effect of a judgment for which concludes all defences that are made to the defendant\u2019s liability. But obviously this consequence cannot be ascribed to the present pleading, consistent with its general purpose and other parts, as the objection to the action is made, and the right to make it recognized and acted on by the Court. The demand for the account must, therefore, be understood as contingent upon the failure of the defence to the action, when it might become necessary. This, then, is not a variance.\nAt the opening of the cause, the appellee moved to dismiss the appeal, upon the alleged insufficiency of the papers to warrant it in forma pauperis, but was denied.\nThere is error, and the judgment is reversed, and the Court below will proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with the law, as declared in this opinion.\nError. Reversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Smith, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Mr. 8. J. \u00c9rwin, for the plaintiffs.", "Mr. E. C. Smith, for the defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "C. A. MULL and others v. P. J. WALKER and others.\nStep-father \u2014 Parent and Child \u2014 Executors and Administrators\u2014 Statute of Presumptions \u2014 Pleading\u2014Counter-claim\u2014Variance.\n1. Plaintiffs sued the defendant, who was their step-father, and administrator of their deceased father, for their distributive shares in their father\u2019s estate. The defendant setup as a counter-claim the money expended by him in the necessary support of plaintiffs during their minority, and while they lived with him as part of his family: Held, (1) that as plaintiffs\u2019 demand was against the defendant personally, for an estate wasted and misapplied, there was no want of mutuality in defendant\u2019s demand for reduction of plaintiffs\u2019 claim, although it was not strictly a counter-claim; (2) that as the parties in this case constituted one family and were provided for in common, and it did not appear that the defendant step-father had not means of his own, sufficient for the support of the plaintiffs, plaintiffs incurred no liability to defendant, upon an implied contract, for their support and maintenance.\nS. If a step-father, or father, has not means of his own sufficient for the support of his step-children or children, he may retain the interest on funds in his hands belonging to them and expend it in their necessary support. Such expenditure will be .allowed him as a lawful disbursement.\n3. The statute, Rev. Code, oh. 65, \u00a7\u00a7 18. 19, was enacted to quiet controversies and prevent the presentation of stale demands, and contains no saving clause or exception in favor of infants' or femes covert.\n4. Where a defendant, sued for an account, sets up, in his answer, matter in bar of an account, but also demands a reference and account, the demand for the account will not be construed as a waiver of the other defences, but must be understood as contingent upon the failure of the other defences. Therefore such a demand in answer is not a variance.\nCivil action, tried at the Fall Term, 1887, of the Superior Court of Burile County, before Boylcin, J., and a jury.\nThe defendant P. J. Walker, individually, and as administrator of Job Hicks, appealed.\nThe facts appear in the opinion.\nMr. 8. J. \u00c9rwin, for the plaintiffs.\nMr. E. C. Smith, for the defendant." }, "file_name": "0046-01", "first_page_order": 70, "last_page_order": 75 }