{
  "id": 8651397,
  "name": "JOSIAH HODGES v. C. W. HODGES",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hodges v. Hodges",
  "decision_date": "1890-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "374",
  "last_page": "375",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "106 N.C. 374"
    }
  ],
  "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": "103 N. C., 337",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650030
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/103/0337-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Jones, 400",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones",
      "case_ids": [
        8682685
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/46/0400-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 Ired., 185",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "case_ids": [
        1972710
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/32/0185-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Hawks, 95",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hawks",
      "case_ids": [
        8681317
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/11/0095-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 229,
    "char_count": 2945,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.543,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2368632469466111e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6069660818063138
    },
    "sha256": "1a5b3533b14c5ebda34381b0a91cd655972801813dbb9135e1d34dc689cda236",
    "simhash": "1:1142a0e43930987e",
    "word_count": 518
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:21:20.066111+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOSIAH HODGES v. C. W. HODGES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Shepherd, J.:\nIt became material on the trial of this action to ascertain whether Mrs. M. A. Hodges was an infant when she executed the deed of July, 1862.\nFor the purpose of proving that she was under the age of twenty-one years at that time the plaintiff introduced D. C. Pharr, who testified that he had heard his mother say that the said M. A. Plodges was born in 1845. This was objected to, and the objection being overruled the defendant excepted.\nThe rule which admits such hearsay declarations is clearly defined by the authorities, and it is well settled that, as preliminary to their admission, it must be affirmatively shown that they were made ante litem motam.\n\u201cIt is necessary that they should have been made, not only without- any view of benefiting the person making them, but also without a view of benefiting any other.\u201d Morgan v. Parnell, 4 Hawks, 95.\nIn the above case the declarations of Mrs. Morgan were rejected because it was not shown when they were made, HendehsoN, J , saying that \u201c for aught that appears to the contrary, they might have been made on that very day on which her deposition was taken, and with a view to this contest. * * * At all events, it does not appear to have been made ante litem motam.\u201d Best\u2019s Principles Ev , 476, and notes. It was not shown, in our case, when the declarations were made, and it was, therefore, error on the part of the Court in receiving them. Another requirement is, that the declarant must be dead. 1 Greenleaf Ev., 103-104; Moffit v. Witherspoon, 10 Ired., 185; Clements v. Hunt, 1 Jones, 400; Best\u2019s Principles Ev., 476.\nThis fact should have been shown before the witness was permitted to testify as to the declaration, and it was not necessary that the defendant should have assigned his objection specifically. The general objection was sufficient. State v. Wilkerson, 103 N. C., 337.\nNot only did the plaintiff fail to show that the declarant was dead, but it appeared from the cross-examination that she was in fact living.\nFor these reasons there should be a new trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Shepherd, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. C. W. Tillett, for plaintiff.",
      "Mr. P. D. Walker, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOSIAH HODGES v. C. W. HODGES.\nEvidence \u2014 Hearsay\u2014Infant\u2014Deed\u2014Ante Litem, Motam \u2014 New Trial.\n1. It was material to inquire, in a civil action to recover land, if one H. was an infant at the time she executed a certain deed in 1862. To prove she was not, plaintiff offered evidence of one who heard his mother say that H. was born in 1845. It was not shown that the declarations were made ante litem motam, or that the person\u2019 making them was dead: Held, that such evidence was not admissible, and its admission entitles the party injured to a new trial.\n2. Where these preliminary facts (if facts) are not shown, specific objection is not required \u2014 mere general objection is sufficient.\nThis was a civil action, for the recovery of real property tried at (he August Term, 1889, of Mecklenburg Superior Court, before Connor. J.\nMr. C. W. Tillett, for plaintiff.\nMr. P. D. Walker, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0374-01",
  "first_page_order": 400,
  "last_page_order": 401
}