{
  "id": 11268813,
  "name": "VAN SMITH BUILDING MATERIAL COMPANY v. JOHN R. PENDER, Trading as TARBORO HARDWARE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Van Smith Building Material Co. v. Pender",
  "decision_date": "1917-02-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "55",
  "last_page": "57",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "173 N.C. 55"
    }
  ],
  "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": "111 N. C., 296",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 N. C., 209",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8688939
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/80/0209-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 304,
    "char_count": 4703,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.456,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3660661297241654
    },
    "sha256": "d85e4fe028385884d97c5c1e2acee3998c8f946bd29291fb86348bdd94e45684",
    "simhash": "1:cacabe3382703b6a",
    "word_count": 795
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:49:44.051040+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "VAN SMITH BUILDING MATERIAL COMPANY v. JOHN R. PENDER, Trading as TARBORO HARDWARE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "AlleN, J.\nThe motions of the plaintiff are predicated upon the idea that a verified complaint has been filed and that the defendant must, therefore, file a verified answer.\nThe statute (Rev., sec. 488), which provides that when \u201cAny pleading is verified every subsequent pleading except a demurrer must be verified,\u201d applies by its terms only to courts of record, and a court of a justice of the peace is not only not a court of record (Reeves v. Davis, 80 N. C., 209; Williams v. Bowling, 111 N. C., 296), but it is explessly provided that the pleadings in that court may be \u201cwritten or oral.\u201d Revised, sec. 1488.\nIf, however, it be conceded, as the plaintiff contends, that the statute (Rev., sec. 488) applies and that a verified answer must be filed in all cases when the complaint is verified, he cannot take advantage of the liosition, because he has not filed a verified complaint.\nThe paper called a complaint does not state the title of the cause, the name of the court, the name of the county, or the names of the parties, as required in complaints by section 467 of the Revisal, and is properly designated by the justice in his return as a \u201cverified account,\u201d which may be used as evidence under Revisal, sec. 1625. Nor is it verified as a complaint. Pell\u2019s Revisal, sec. 489, and cases cited.\nIt follows that the oral plea of the defendant denying liability raised an issue wbieb could only be determined by a jury, and that tbe plaintiff was not entitled to have an additional pleading filed, nor to judgment.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "AlleN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James M. Norfleet for plaintiff.",
      "No counsel for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "VAN SMITH BUILDING MATERIAL COMPANY v. JOHN R. PENDER, Trading as TARBORO HARDWARE COMPANY.\n(Filed 28 February, 1917.)\n1. Justices\u2019 Courts \u2014 Pleadings\u2014Verified Statements \u2014 Oral Pleadings.\nTlie requirements of Revisal, sec. 488, that pleadings filed subsequent to a verified pleading, excepting demurrer, shall likewise be verified, applies only to courts of record, and has no application to pleadings in a justice\u2019s court, which is not a court of record, and as to which the statute, Revisal, sec. 488, provides that they may be \u201cwritten or oral.\u201d\n2. Same \u2014 Appeal\u2014Superior Court \u2014 Trials\u2014Evidence\u2014Questions for Jury.\nA paper-writing introduced before a justice of the peace, purporting upon its face only to be a verified account upon which judgment is sought, lacking the requisites of a complaint, under the provisions of Revisal, 467, in failing to state the title of the cause, the name of the county >and parties, will not be considered as a verified complaint on the trial in the Superior Court; requiring the answer there to be verified; and upon an oral answer denying the liability and raising the issue, the question is for the determination of the jury under proper evidence.\nCivil action, tried before Allen, J., at October Term, 1916, of EDGECOMBE.\nTbis is an action, commenced before a justice of the peace, to recover $165.\nThe plaintiff filed the following paper before the justice of the peace:\nComplaint.\nVan Smith Building Material Company.\nDEALERS IN\nLime, Dement, Plaster, and All Building Material.\nCharleston, S. C., February 4, 1915.\nCar No. 31516 Atlantic Coast Line.\nSold to Tarboro Hardware Company, Tarboro, N. 0.\n150 bbls. (600 sks.) Dexter Cement. Price, $1.10. .$165.\nState of South Carolina,\nCounty oe Charleston.\nPersonally appeared before me, Van Smith, who, being duly sworn, says that of his own knowledge the foregoing account is just and correct, and that no part thereof has been paid, and said Tarboro Hardware Company is now justly due Van Smith Building Material Company the sum of $165, with interest from sixty days from, date of invoice, which is 5 April, 1915, date of invoice being 4 February, 1915. . D. Van Smith.\nSubscribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of June, 1916.\nGiven under my band and notarial seal.\nE. P. Campbell,\n[Notary Seal] Notary Public for S. 0.\nMy commission expires.\nAnd tbe defendant in person, in open court, orally denied liability.\nThe action was tried before the justice, and the statement of the pleadings in the return is as follows:\n\u201cPlaintiff complained as per verified account filed. 'Defendant denies liability.\u201d\nThe justice rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $120.50 and- costs, from which the defendant appealed.\nIn the Superior Court the plaintiff moved the court to require the defendant to file an answer to the verified complaint of plaintiff, setting up any defense he may have to such action. Motion refused. Plaintiff excepted.\nThe plaintiff then tendered judgment in his favor for $165, with interest from 5 April, 1915, and for costs, which his Honor refused to sign, and he excepted and appealed.\nJames M. Norfleet for plaintiff.\nNo counsel for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0055-01",
  "first_page_order": 113,
  "last_page_order": 115
}