{
  "id": 8657541,
  "name": "J. W. LYTTON v. MARION MANUFACTURING COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lytton v. Marion Manufacturing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1911-12-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "331",
  "last_page": "333",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "157 N.C. 331"
    }
  ],
  "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": "80 N. Y. Supp., 861",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        5506910
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nys/80/0861-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 App. Div., 381",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "A.D.",
      "case_ids": [
        5009175
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ad/81/0381-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 N. Y. Supp., 936",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        7696531
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nys/107/0936-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 App. Div., 376",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "A.D.",
      "case_ids": [
        5294761
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "380"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ad/123/0376-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 N. Y. Supp., 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        7661195
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nys/109/0131-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 App. Div., 674",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "A.D.",
      "case_ids": [
        5304051
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "676"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ad/124/0674-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 N. Y., 128",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "case_ids": [
        2328236
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "135"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ny/187/0128-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 N. Y., 509",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 N. C., 751",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651861
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/112/0751-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 N. C., 241",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 306,
    "char_count": 3968,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.449,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.4925414550072017e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8823305914746381
    },
    "sha256": "a4b0d3cd827551c3a8fffc0df6e2736b217a26c8623e715a1448805e1836a454",
    "simhash": "1:c3b3e2c766899a32",
    "word_count": 702
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:03.195282+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. W. LYTTON v. MARION MANUFACTURING COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROWN, J.\nTbe plaintiff was a machinist in the employment of defendant, and alleges that he was injured while operating a machine lathe by some defect in the mandrel furnished him.\nThe admission of the following evidence over the defendant\u2019s objection is assigned as error. On his redirect examination the plaintiff was asked the following question by his counsel:\n\u201cYou testified, Mr. Lytton, in response to Mr. Ryburn\u2019s question, that you were still in the employ of the Marion Manufacturing Company, notwithstanding the fact that you met with this accident and are suing them, and I wish you would tell the court and the jury how it happens that you are still in the employ of that company?\u201d\nTo this question he replied:\n\u201cA. Well, when I came back from the hospital Mr. D. D. Little, the president of the mill, come to me and said, 'Mr. Lyt-ton, I want to know how you feel about this matter,\u2019 and I said, 'Mr. Little, I feel like I am injured for life, and that company is responsible for not furnishing me the proper material.\u2019 He said, 'Yes, Mr. Lytton, I expect you will have to sue, and you ought to have big damage,\u2019 and I said, \u2018Mr. Little, I want you to do something for me. I think the company is due me something; if they had furnished me the proper stuff I would not have been hurt. I would have two eyes now if they had give me the right steel in there and tools.\u2019 And he said, 'I am awfully sorry you are injured, and I can\u2019t do nothing for you myself, but don\u2019t be afraid to sue. It don\u2019t come off me. I would like to do something for you, but it\u2019s got to come off the insurance people, and it shan\u2019t have anything to do with your job. If you have to sue, go ahead. I hope you get something.\u2019 \u201d\nThis evidence was incompetent, and should have been excluded. It is well settled that the declarations of officers of a corporation are competent only when made in the line of official duty and while the officer is discharging it in reference to a transaction for the corporation. Younce v. Lumber Co., 155 N. C., 241, and cases cited; Rumbough v. Imp. Co., 112 N. C., 751.\nIn addition to the incompetency of Little\u2019s declarations as mere hearsay, the subject-matter of the. declaration is universally beld to be incompetent and disconnected witb tbe inquiry before tbe court.\nEvidence tbat tbe defendant in an action for damages arising from an injury is insured in a casualty company is entirely foreign to tbe issues raised by tbe pleadings and is incompetent. By some courts it is beld to be so dangerous as to justify another trial, even when tbe trial judge strikes it from tbe record.\nCosselmon v. Dunfee, 172 N. Y., 509; Loughlin v. Brassil, 187 N. Y., 128, 135; Hordern v. Salvation Army, 124 App. Div., 674, 676, 109 N. Y. Supp., 131; Haigh v. Edelmeyer and M. H. Elevator Co., 123 App. Div., 376, 380, 107 N. Y. Supp., 936; Manigold v. Black River Traction Co., 81 App. Div., 381, 80 N. Y. Supp., 861.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROWN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Solomon Gallert for plaintiff.",
      "Ryburn \u2022& Hoey for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. W. LYTTON v. MARION MANUFACTURING COMPANY.\n(Filed 13 December, 1911.)\n1. Evidence \u2014 Corporations\u2014Officers\u2014Declarations\u2014Hearsay.\nDeclarations of officers are inadmissible as tending to show negligence on tbe part of tbe corporation in an action for damages, except when tbe declarations are shown to have been made by them in the line of their official duty at the time they are discharging this duty in a transaction for the company.\n2. Evidence \u2014 Negligence\u2014insurance\u2014Third Parties.\nIn an action for damages for a personal injury, evidence that the defendant\u2019s liability for the act complained of has been insured by a third person is entirely foreign to the issue, and is incompetent.\nAppeal from Long, J., at August Term, 1911, of Ruthee-eoed.\nCivil action brought for damages for personal injury received by plaintiff while in defendant\u2019s employment.\nThere was verdict for plaintiff upon the issues submitted, and from the judgment rendered the defendant appealed.\nSolomon Gallert for plaintiff.\nRyburn \u2022& Hoey for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0331-01",
  "first_page_order": 371,
  "last_page_order": 373
}