{
  "id": 11269911,
  "name": "J. B. H. KNIGHT v. S. J. EVERETT, Administrator",
  "name_abbreviation": "Knight v. Everett",
  "decision_date": "1910-03-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "118",
  "last_page": "119",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "152 N.C. 118"
    }
  ],
  "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": "139 N. C., 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651921
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/139/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 N. C., 125",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 N. C., 266",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273199
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/107/0266-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 176,
    "char_count": 2315,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.462,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8428862171448345e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3628894966463296
    },
    "sha256": "68d94cc71ccd568becbb32a271f6aad9b71d3f424d43cc536f13938c0744fbdb",
    "simhash": "1:661a530fda5c8a11",
    "word_count": 386
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:47.463636+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. B. H. KNIGHT v. S. J. EVERETT, Administrator."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nThis is an action for medical services rendered by the plaintiff, \u00e1 physician, to the defendant\u2019s intestate. The plaintiff was offered as a witness in his own behalf to prove that he attended on the defendant; had an account against him therefor; to prove the items of the account, the number of visits he made, the sum due him therefor and the value of his services. Each of these questions was objected to, and was properly ruled out. Sucb evidence was clearly as to \u201cpersonal transactions\u201d with tbe deceased and incompetent under tbe terms of tbe statute, Rev., 1631; Bunn v. Todd, 107 N. C., 266, and cases cited thereunder in tbe Annotated Ed., tbe defendant not having testified as to these matters.\nTbe. plaintiff cannot prove by bis own testimony either an express contract which would be a \u201ccommunication\u201d with tbe deceased, nor an implied contract by showing a \u201cpersonal transaction,\u201d as services rendered. Dunn v. Currie, 141 N. C., 125; Davidson v. Bardin, 139 N. C., 1.\nTbe only other exception is to tbe charge of tbe court upon tbe statute of limitation and need not be considered, for, as by tbe exclusion of tbe plaintiff\u2019s testimony there was no indebtedness proven, any instruction upon tbe statute of limitation, if erroneous, would be harjnless error.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "S. A. Newell for plaintiff.",
      "Winston & Everett for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. B. H. KNIGHT v. S. J. EVERETT, Administrator.\n(Filed 9 March, 1910.)\n1. Deceased Persons \u2014 Communications and Transactions \u2014 Services of Physician.\nTestimony by a physician, the plaintiff, that he attended deceased as such, for which he had an account against him, of the number of- visits, sum due therefor, etc., is incompetent, as being \u201cpersonal transactions\u201d with the deceased prohibited by the statute (Revisal, sec. 1631), the defendant not having testified as to such matters.\n2. Instructions \u2014 Limitations of Actions \u2014 Harmless Error.\nWhen by the exclusion of evidence on appeal the plaintiff cannot recover in his action, it is unnecessary for the Supreme Court to consider the charge of the court on the statute of limitations on a different branch of the case, as such, if erroneous, would be harmless error.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Gbohe, J., at December Term, 1909, of MARTIN.\nThe facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court.\nS. A. Newell for plaintiff.\nWinston & Everett for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0118-01",
  "first_page_order": 164,
  "last_page_order": 165
}