{
  "id": 8655426,
  "name": "JOSEPH W. LITTLE, Administrator of D. T. McCULLOCH, v. H. W. CALDWELL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Little v. Caldwell",
  "decision_date": "1912-03-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "351",
  "last_page": "354",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "158 N.C. 351"
    }
  ],
  "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 Mass., 580",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "case_ids": [
        764096
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/140/0580-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 Mass., 314",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "case_ids": [
        815875
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/153/0314-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 Wis., 614",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wis.",
      "case_ids": [
        8707669
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wis/50/0614-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 Tex. Civ. App., 471",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Tex. Civ. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        267409
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/tex-civ-app/14/0471-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Mo. App., 543",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mo. App.",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 316,
    "char_count": 4679,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.47,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.0011153170616546e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3149486707526192
    },
    "sha256": "7f35c4c96c6e994b01ccb42b4121b04fa42f0a9dc9d3f483f84b5ce8470b3429",
    "simhash": "1:7117de5094875450",
    "word_count": 783
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:45:05.014249+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOSEPH W. LITTLE, Administrator of D. T. McCULLOCH, v. H. W. CALDWELL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BkowN, J.\nThe only assignment of error relates to the correctness of the following ruling of the judge:\n\u201cSecond. That the funds received from the Junior Order United American Mechanics are hereby declared to be assets in the hands of the administrator for the payment of debts of D. T. McCulloch, and the court finds as a fact on the admission of all parties that the deceased was a bachelor and died without leaving children, or any relative living with him, but did have brothers, sisters, and nephews and nieces, whom the court holds not legal dependents\u2019 under the terms of the certificate offered in evidence.\u201d\nIt appears that the membership certificate in the Junior Order of United American Mechanics provides that any benefit accruing thereunder shall be payable to the legal dependents of the deceased. The benefit for $500 was paid over to the administrator by the Junior Order of United American Mechanics, with the understanding that it was to be distributed as provided by law, and the administrator desires to disburse it among creditors, or among the brothers and sisters and nephews and nieces of the deceased, as the court may hold is proper.\nUpon the findings of fact, we agree with the court below that the deceased died leaving no \u201clegal dependents\u201d within the meaning of the certificate of membership.\nHis brothers and sisters did not live with him, and for aught that appears were in no legal sense dependent upon him, anymore than he was dependent upon them.\nWhile the meaning of the term \u201clegal dependent\u201d has not been defined in any case before this Court, we have abundant authority from other courts, as well as text-writers, in support of our decision.\nWebster\u2019s Dictionary defines the word \u201cdependent\u201d primarily to mean \u201cone who depends; one who is sustained by another, or who relies on another for support or favor.\u201d\nIn Keener v. Grand Lodge, 36 Mo. App., 543, the \u201clegal dependents\u201d of a person were restricted to those whom he was legally bound to support.\nUpon this theory a mistress is held not to be a legal dependent, and the same as to servants and retainers. Keener v. Grand Lodge, supra; West v. Lodge, 14 Tex. Civ. App., 471.\nIn a Wisconsin case the Supreme Court defined the word \u201cdependent\u201d as follows: \u201cWe think the true meaning of the word 'dependent\u2019 in this connection means some person, or persons, dependent for support in some way upon the deceased.\u201d Ballou v. Giles, 50 Wis., 614.\nMr. Bacon, in his work on Benefit Societies, after reviewing the cases, says: \u201cWe are forced to the conclusion that they limit the term 'dependents\u2019 to those who reasonably rely upon another for subsistence, nourishment, and support.\u201d\nIn Massachusetts it is held a mother not living with her son, and not relying on him for support, is not a legal dependent (McCarthy v. New England Order, 153 Mass., 314), and the same ruling as to a brother is made in Supreme Council v. Smith, 45 N. J. E., 466.\nIn Supreme Council v. Perry, 140 Mass., 580, it is held that a sister (nothing else appearing) is not a legal dependent.\nIn 3 Eng. and Am. Ency., 969, it is said: \u201cIn passing upon the designation of 'dependents,\u2019 the courts have generally construed it strictly, and held it to mean those relying upon the insured for support.\u201d\nIn 2 Words and Phrases, 1991-1992, many cases are cited, and quoted from at length, sustaining this definition of the term.\nAs there are no \u201clegal dependents,\u201d it follows that the administrator is entitled to the fund to be applied to the debts of the deceased, if any, and otherwise distributed in due course of administration.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BkowN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rountree \u2022& Go/it for plaintiff.",
      "No counsel for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOSEPH W. LITTLE, Administrator of D. T. McCULLOCH, v. H. W. CALDWELL.\n(Filed 13 March, 1912.)\n1. Insurance \u2014 Fraternal Order \u2014 \u201cLegal Dependents\u201d \u2014 Interpretation.\nBrothers and sisters of the deceased, who died a bachelor, without having children, are not his legal \u201cdependents,\u201d nothing else appearing, so as to make them the beneficiaries under his membership certificate of a fraternal order, providing that anjr benefits thereunder accrue to his \u201clegal dependents.\u201d\n2. Insurance \u2014 Fraternal Orders \u2014 \u201cLegal Dependents\u201d \u2014 Executors and Administrators \u2014 Creditors.\nWhen there are no \u201clegal dependents\u201d of the deceased, within the terms of his certificate of membership in a fraternal insurance order, the administrator is entitled to the proceeds of the policy for distribution among creditors of the deceased.\nAppeal from OUne, J., at July Term, 1911, of New TIaN-ovee.\nCivil action. From tire judgment rendered the plaintiff appealed.\nThe facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice Brown.\nRountree \u2022& Go/it for plaintiff.\nNo counsel for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0351-01",
  "first_page_order": 395,
  "last_page_order": 398
}