{
  "id": 8661716,
  "name": "RICHARD LEDBETTER v. C. E. GRAHAM",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ledbetter v. Graham",
  "decision_date": "1898-04-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "753",
  "last_page": "754",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "122 N.C. 753"
    }
  ],
  "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": "107 N. C., 266",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273199
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/107/0266-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 N. C., 517",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8695555
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/79/0517-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 125,
    "char_count": 1460,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.478,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.719567370958748e-08,
      "percentile": 0.296747802671121
    },
    "sha256": "08281be33d91c61ab9bc6fb24dacc514eefd4247970eec36e3fa56043a631485",
    "simhash": "1:eaa5dc631a0699b1",
    "word_count": 253
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:06:10.161321+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "RICHARD LEDBETTER v. C. E. GRAHAM."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam\n: Affirmed. See Shields v. Smith, 79 N. C., 517 and Bunn v. Todd, 107 N. C., 266.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Moore & Moore for plaintiff.",
      "Messrs. Merrimon & Merrimon for defendant (appellant)."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "RICHARD LEDBETTER v. C. E. GRAHAM.\n(Decided April 23, 1898).\nAction on Note\u25a0\u2014 Trial\u2014 Witness, Competency of\u2014 Transaction with a Deceased Person.\n1. A party to an action is a competent witness as to a transaction between himself and a person deceased at the time of such examination when the representative of such deceased person is not a party to the action.\n2. The interest disqualifying a person as a witness under Section 590 of The Code is an interest in the event of the action.\nCivil ACTION tried before Norwood, J., and a jury at August Term, 1897, of BUNCOMBE Superior Court. The action was against the defendant Graham, the only defendant in the case, who was a surety of M. E. Carter who was dead at the time. The action was commenced, upon a note for $700 made to the plaintiff. The defendant admitted he made the note as alleged in the complaint and plead the Statute of Limitations. The note was barred by the Statute unless Carter, the principal obligor, had made certain partial payments alleged in the complaint. On the trial the plaintiff and his son, who had acted as plaintiff\u2019s agent, was allowed to testify concerning payments made by Carter on the note. The defendant objected to the admission of the testimony and appealed from the judgment rendered.\nMessrs. Moore & Moore for plaintiff.\nMessrs. Merrimon & Merrimon for defendant (appellant)."
  },
  "file_name": "0753-01",
  "first_page_order": 785,
  "last_page_order": 786
}