{
  "id": 8655974,
  "name": "MINNIE SHORE and Husband, CHARLES SHORE, v. LULA HOLT",
  "name_abbreviation": "Shore v. Holt",
  "decision_date": "1923-04-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "312",
  "last_page": "314",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 N.C. 312"
    }
  ],
  "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": "154 N. C., 444",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 N. C., 450",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272018
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/160/0450-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 N. C., 352",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "177 N. C., 127",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 N. C., 508",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273179,
        11273196
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/167/0508-01",
        "/nc/167/0508-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 N. C., 133",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273119
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/125/0133-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 N. C., 77",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 N. C., 97",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654014
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/151/0097-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 N. C., 204",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655597
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/181/0204-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N. C., 51",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276876
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/85/0051-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 N. C., 385",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651425
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/104/0385-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 N. C., 575",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11253656
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/141/0575-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 N. C., 75",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657006
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/168/0075-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 N. C., 839",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11255794
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/172/0839-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 N. C., 463",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660110
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/170/0463-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 N. C., 563",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656838
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/182/0563-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 386,
    "char_count": 6051,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.472,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.952227654702369e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9349670579249987
    },
    "sha256": "3485eb1d598f204cf7364e99f8913076c57610a77b93e937293edc977832d34b",
    "simhash": "1:e4688f3594bf60dd",
    "word_count": 1069
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:28.944101+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MINNIE SHORE and Husband, CHARLES SHORE, v. LULA HOLT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, J.\nTbe feme plaintiff alleges that in 1908 she was a ward of tbe Children\u2019s Home Society of North Carolina, Inc., \u2014 being only ten years old at that time \u2014 and that she was induced to go and live in tbe home of tbe defendant with tbe assurance that she, tbe feme plaintiff, would be adopted as a child of tbe defendant and thereby become entitled to receive, at tbe death of tbe defendant, a child\u2019s share of her estate. Tbe plaintiff, relying upon this promise, changed her name, went into tbe home of tbe defendant and rendered every kind of service required of her by tbe defendant. She alleges that she cooked, washed dishes, milked the cow, nursed tbe defendant\u2019s husband in bis sickness, attended to many of tbe chores about tbe bouse, worked in the cotton mill and in tbe cigar factory and turned over her wages to tbe defendant.\nOn 1 August, 1915, tbe feme plaintiff was married to Charles Shore, wb'o also worked for tbe defendant for a period of eight months immediately thereafter. Plaintiff later learned that she bad not been legally adopted by tbe defendant, and it is alleged that tbe defendant has now disavowed her intention to carry out her promise.\nThe feme plaintiff brings this action to recover upon a quantum meruit for the value of the services rendered by her to the defendant under the promise of reward as above set out. Por the right to maintain her action, she relies upon the line of cas\u00e9s of which the following are representative: Hayman v. Davis, 182 N. C., 563; McCurry v. Purgason, 170 N. C., 463; Debruhl v. Trust Co., 172 N. C., 839; Patterson v. Franklin, 168 N. C., 75; Winkler v. Killian, 141 N. C., 575; Whetstine v. Wilson, 104 N. C., 385; Miller v. Lash, 85 N. C., 51.\nCharles Shore is joined as a coplaintiff with bis wife; and, in tbe present suit, coupled with bis wife\u2019s complaint, be has set up a separate and independent cause of action for services rendered by him and for an accounting for tbe eight months be was with tbe defendant.\nThe basis of the demurrer is that there is a misjoinder, botb of parties and of causes of action. Where this occurs, it has been held with us that the demurrer should be sustained and the action dismissed. Roberts v. Mfg. Co., 181 N. C., 204; Thigpen v. Cotton Mills, 151 N. C., 97. Clearly, the two causes of action are separate and distinct; and, if the feme plaintiff\u2019s husband has been improperly joined as a party plaintiff in her suit, the demurrer should be sustained and the action dismissed under authority of tbe cases just cited. But if tbe joinder of tbe bus-band, as a formal party, in tbe wife\u2019s suit, is a matter of no special moment, as was said in Patterson v. Franklin, 168 N. C., 77, it would seem that sbe should be allowed to proceed on her cause of action with tbe allegations of her husband stricken from tbe complaint.\nWhen several causes of action have been improperly united, tbe Court may sustain tbe demurrer and permit tbe defect to be cured by amendment, or order a division, upon such terms as are just, under authority of C. S., 516. Gattis v. Kilgo, 125 N. C., 133.\nTrue, in Lipinsky v. Revell, 167 N. C., 508, it was said that tbe bus-band was not a necessary or even a proper party to an action of this kind, but this was unnecessary to tbe decision in that case and hence tbe statement that be was an improper party must be considered as no more than an obiter dictum. That be is not a necessary party is established by all tbe decisions on tbe subject (C. S., 2513), but in Sandlin v. City of Wilmington, ante, 257 it was suggested, on tbe peculiar facts there presented, that tbe husband might not be an improper party in an action brought by bis wife to abate a nuisance. See, also, Craddock v. Brinkley, 177 N. C., 127; Kirkpatrick v. Crutchfield, 178 N. C., 352, and Price v. Electric Co., 160 N. C., 450.\nWhile tbe demurrer should have been sustained for a misjoinder of tbe two causes of action, we are of opinion that tbe feme plaintiff\u2019s suit should not be dismissed.\nIn the present condition of the pleadings, we will remand the cause for further action along the lines suggested in this opinion; such procedure being permitted in the exercise of our discretion. Huggins v. Waters, 154 N. C., 444.\nLet one-half tbe costs of this appeal be taxed against tbe plaintiffs and one-balf against tbe defendant.\nRemanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel appearing for plaintiffs.",
      "John A. Barringer for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MINNIE SHORE and Husband, CHARLES SHORE, v. LULA HOLT.\n(Filed 18 April, 1923.)\n1. Actions \u2014 Misjoinder\u2014Parties\u2014Causes of Action \u2014 Husband and Wife\u2014 Demurrer \u2014 Dismissal\u2014Retention Upon Terms \u2014 Courts\u2014Statutes.\nAn action brought by the wife in which her husband has joined, each independently seeking to recover from the defendant the value of their services separately rendered, upon a quantum meruit, is a misjoinder both of parties plaintiff and causes of action, which will ordinarily be dismissed upon demurrer; but the court may sustain the demurrer and permit the defect to be cured by an amendment and the wife's cause proceeded with upon such terms as it considers just. C. S., 516.\n2. Same \u2014 Pleadings \u2014 Amendments \u2014 Appeal and Error \u2014 Remanding Cause \u2014 Procedure.\nWhile the husband is not a necessary party to his wife\u2019s action to recover for the value of her services rendered upon a quantum meruit, C. S., 2513, his joinder therein as a party plaintiff is not improper; and where he has alleged an independent cause of action upon a quantum meruit, the Supreme Court, on appeal, in the exercise of its discretion, may remand the cause with direction that the allegations of the complaint as to the statement of the husband\u2019s cause be stricken out and the action of the wife proceeded with.\nAppeal by defendant from Harding, J., at November Term, 1922, of Guileoed.\nCivil action to recover upon a quantum meruit for services rendered and for an accounting.\nTbe defendant demurred upon tbe ground that there was a misjoinder, botb of parties and of causes of action. Demurrer overruled. Defendant excepted and appealed.\nNo counsel appearing for plaintiffs.\nJohn A. Barringer for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0312-01",
  "first_page_order": 378,
  "last_page_order": 380
}