{
  "id": 11273063,
  "name": "PHIFER v. FORD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Phifer v. Ford",
  "decision_date": "1902-04-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "208",
  "last_page": "209",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "130 N.C. 208"
    }
  ],
  "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": "122 N. C., 620",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 N. C., 115",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272721
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/92/0115-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 194,
    "char_count": 2035,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.403,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2391483055575827
    },
    "sha256": "087f7d0621820cc680f4ab7a57a7080cc84dc1f1b9e971f2ef2c77dda22dfa23",
    "simhash": "1:0057fc940ba0930b",
    "word_count": 345
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:31:43.301896+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "PHIFER v. FORD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.\nThis is a special proceeding, begun before the Clerk, to sell land to make assets to pay debts of intestate, The only debt alleged is a note under seal, executed 9 th Eeb-.ruary, 1874, due one day after date. The statute of limitations is pleaded, and is the only question presented by the appeal. The maker of the bond di\u00e9d September, 1877, three years and six months after the cause of action accrued, but there was no administration taken out on his estate until 26th May, 1898, and this action was begun within twelve months thereafter. By the express terms of The Code, Sec. 164, the debt is not barred. Dunlap v. Hendley, 92 N. C., 115; Winslow v. Benton, at this term.\nThe appellee relied upon Copeland v. Collins, 122 N. C., 620, but that case has no application, for the action there was not begun within twelve months after letters of administration were taken out. The Court below was doubtless misled by the fourth headuote to that case, which is not correct unless read in connection with the facts therein. Further discussion is here unnecessary, asi a case \u201con all fours\u201d with this (Winslow v. Benton) has already been decided at this term oni this point.\nUpon the facts agreed, judgment should have been entered for the plaintiff.\nBeversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Armfield & Williams, for the plaintiff.",
      "Redwine & 8taclc, for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "PHIFER v. FORD\n(Filed April 22, 1902.)\nLIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS \u2014 Action Against Personal Representative \u2014 The Code, See. 16J\u00a1.\nIf a person against whom an. action may be brought die before the expiration of the time limited for the commencement thereof, and the cause of action survives1, an action may be commenced against his personal representative after the expiration of that time and within one year after the issuing of letters testamentary.\nActioN by W. H. Phifer, administrator of John Eord, against Leander Eord and others, heard by Judge W. 8. O\u2019B. Robinson, at January Term, 1901, of the Superior Court of Union County. From judgement for the defendants, the plaintiff appealed.\nArmfield & Williams, for the plaintiff.\nRedwine & 8taclc, for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0208-01",
  "first_page_order": 244,
  "last_page_order": 245
}