{
  "id": 8658170,
  "name": "MEEKINS v. RAILROAD CO.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Meekins v. Railroad Co.",
  "decision_date": "1904-09-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "1",
  "last_page": "2",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "136 N.C. 1"
    }
  ],
  "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": "130 N. C., 161",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272921
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/130/0161-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 S. C., 127",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "S.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4408644
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sc/54/0127-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 159,
    "char_count": 1972,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.424,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20767233919815403
    },
    "sha256": "1ee304672e6fc2d32a6605113a2f4b177eb0081158d37554bf00c2d90f38190d",
    "simhash": "1:7616512705a60cbe",
    "word_count": 331
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:53:15.809157+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MEEKINS v. RAILROAD CO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nA witness on a former trial testified, among other matters, to hearsay \u2014 the unsworn declarations of the intestate as to the circumstances attending the injury\u2014 which, though incompetent, had been admitted on such trial because not objected to. On this trial below, the witness having died, the plaintiff offered to prove such Avitness\u2019 testimony on the former trial. The defendant objected to the admission of proof of that part of the testimony AA'hich was incompetent. The Judge admitted the testimony and the defendant excepted.\nIf the witness were living the defendant Avould not haA^e been estopped to object to the incompetent part of his testimony, because it had not been\" objected to on the first trial. The same reason applies to proof of his testimony at the first trial, when, by reason of the witness\u2019 death, it is competent to put it in evidence. Garrett v. Weinburg, 54 S. C., 127; 1 Rice Ev., 399. In Chemical Co. v. Kirven, 130 N. C., 161, there was no objection on the ground of incompetency to any part of the evidence at the former trial. The declarations of the intestate in this case should have been preserved by a deposition de bene esse.\nEor the error in admitting, over the defendant\u2019s objection, the incompetent part of the testimony given in at tire former trial there must be a\nNew Tidal.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. F. Aydlett, for the plaintiff.",
      "Pruden & Pruden and Shepherd & Shepherd, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MEEKINS v. RAILROAD CO.\n(Filed September 13, 1904).\nHEARSAY EVIDENCE \u2014 Declarations\u2014Witnesses\u2014Exceptions and Objections.\nWhere incompetent evidence is admitted without objection, at a subsequent trial, the witness being dead, it is not competent to prove what witness testified at former trial if objected to.\nActioN by J. O. M\u00e9ekins against the Norfolk and Southern Railroad Company, heard by Judge W. A. H\u00f3ke and a jury, a.t Spring Term, 1904, of the Superior Court of Tyr-rell County. From a judgment for the plaintiff the defendant appealed.\nE. F. Aydlett, for the plaintiff.\nPruden & Pruden and Shepherd & Shepherd, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0001-01",
  "first_page_order": 41,
  "last_page_order": 42
}