{
  "id": 11272236,
  "name": "H. C. MOFFITT and DAVID J. LEWIS v. NARCISSA SMITH et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Moffitt v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1910-10-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "292",
  "last_page": "293",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "153 N.C. 292"
    }
  ],
  "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": "140 N. C., 679",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 N. C., 221",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 N. C., 78",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8685220
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/24/0078-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 218,
    "char_count": 2889,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.445,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.23913923166949116
    },
    "sha256": "97222a81cdff4c4c9e872bf784cfc4efe7a5fa6274e884472910dbb22b64e46c",
    "simhash": "1:5b686bd21ac90d52",
    "word_count": 500
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:54.157289+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "H. C. MOFFITT and DAVID J. LEWIS v. NARCISSA SMITH et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nOn the trial of the caveat to the will, it appeared tbat tbe testatrix bad been stricken witb paralysis. A non-expert witness testified tbat be tbougbt sbe bad tbe capacity to make a will. He was then allowed, over defendant\u2019s exception, to testify as to wbat be bad observed as to tbe menta\\ condition of tbe witness\u2019 father wben also suffering for many years, from a similar attack. Tbis evidence was admitted \u201cto sbow tbat tbe witness bad experience in observing persons wbo bad. been paralyzed, and it was explained to tbe jury tbat it could not, be considered for any other -purpose.\u201d\nIn Clary v. Clary, 24 N. C., 78, it is beld that any one, though not an expert, who has had an opportunity of knowing and observing a person whose sanity is impeached may give his opinion as to the sanity or insanity of such person. Certainly to give the jury information of the fact that the witness has had opportunity to observe the mental condition of another person, stricken likewise by paralysis, cannot be prejudicial. The jury were instructed that the witness was testifying, not as an expert, but from his own observation, of the mental condition of the testatrix, and his observation of the condition of his father was merely to aid the jury in considering the weight to be given to his testimony. This was competent as \u201copinion evidence\u201d' \u2014 \u2022 as distinguished from \u201cexpert evidence.\u201d Lumber Co. v. R. R., 151 N. C., 221, and cases there cited.\nAfter full and careful consideration of the other exceptions we do not find that they require discussion. The tenth exception, that the court refused the caveators the right to open and conclude, was properly abandoned in this Court. The ruling as to the right to open and conclude is not appealable in any case in which the defendant has introduced evidence. Rule 6, Superior Court, 140 N. C., 679.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. B. Sch\u00fallcen, Lyon & Greer, I. B. Tucker for plaintiff,,",
      "D. J. Lewis for plaintiff H. C. Mo'ffitt.",
      "John D. Bellamy & Son, Don Raclcan and L. V. Gracly for-defendant appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "H. C. MOFFITT and DAVID J. LEWIS v. NARCISSA SMITH et al.\n(Filed 26 October, 1910.)\nI. Witnesses \u2014 Opinion Evidence \u2014 Experience\u2014Weight.\nOne who has testified that the testatrix, in his opinion, had capacity to make the will caveated, may testify as to what he had observed as to the mental condition of another, who had suffered for many years from an attack similar to that of testatrix, when confined to the purpose of aiding the jury in considering the weight to be given his testimony; this being competent as \u201copinion evidence\u201d as distinguished from \u201cexpert evidence.\u201d\n2. Appeal and Error \u2014 Argument, Order of \u2014 Procedure.\nThe ruling of the lower court upon the right to open and conclude is not appealable by defendant when he has introduced evidence.\nAppeal by defendants from W. R. Allen, J., at tbe April Term, 1910, of Columbus.\nJ. B. Sch\u00fallcen, Lyon & Greer, I. B. Tucker for plaintiff,,\nD. J. Lewis for plaintiff H. C. Mo'ffitt.\nJohn D. Bellamy & Son, Don Raclcan and L. V. Gracly for-defendant appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0292-01",
  "first_page_order": 340,
  "last_page_order": 341
}