{
  "id": 2217788,
  "name": "MYRTLE HANIE, Administratrix, v. D. H. PENLAND, Sheriff, and JOE RICE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hanie v. Penland",
  "decision_date": "1927-05-25",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "800",
  "last_page": "802",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "193 N.C. 800"
    }
  ],
  "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": "191 N. C., 636",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630798
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/191/0636-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "177 N. C., 412",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654626
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/177/0412-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 N. C., 22",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654960
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/176/0022-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 N. C., 567",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271011
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/148/0567-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 N. C., 234",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269398
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/147/0234-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "159 N. C., 346",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 295,
    "char_count": 4582,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.479,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.252945923142267e-07,
      "percentile": 0.781766041186185
    },
    "sha256": "5311c2064bfcdd30c39d2040d332ebe040215dd4dee05add335a2084074e001c",
    "simhash": "1:270a7de32337f778",
    "word_count": 794
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:08:43.639996+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MYRTLE HANIE, Administratrix, v. D. H. PENLAND, Sheriff, and JOE RICE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Brogden, J.\nThe cause of .action alleged in tbe complaint was for wrongful death of Garfield Hanie, plaintiff\u2019s intestate, by virtue of tbe negligence of Joe Eice, a special deputy of defendant Penland, sheriff of Buncombe County.\n. Tbe plaintiff offered in evidence tbe summons in tbe action, issued 8 March, 1926, and served on tbe defendants on 9 and 12 March, 1926. It further appears from tbe record that plaintiff\u2019s intestate was killed on 7 April, 1924. It does not appear from tbe record that there was any evidence whatever offered tending to show that tbe suit for wrongful death of plaintiff\u2019s, intestate was brought within a period of one year from the date of the accrual of the cause of action, to wit, 7 April, 1924. Indeed, the summons which was offered in evidence shows conclusively that the suit was not brought within one year after the cause of action accrued. C. S., 160, provides that an action for wrongful death must be \u201cbrought within one year after such death by the executor, administrator, or collector of decedent.\u201d\nIn Bennett v. R. R., 159 N. C., 346, this Court held; \u201cUnder this statute, giving a cause of action on account of the wrongful killing of another, the provision that suit shall be brought within one year after death is a condition annexed, and must be proved by the plaintiff to make out a cause of action, and is not required to be pleaded as a statute of limitation.\u201d Gulledge v. R. R., 147 N. C., 234; Gulledge v. R. R., 148 N. C., 567; Belch v. R. R., 176 N. C., 22; Reynolds v. Cotton Mills, 177 N. C., 412; Brick Co. v. Gentry, 191 N. C., 636.\nThe judgment of nonsuit is therefore correct, and is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Brogden, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. B. Qudger .and Zeb F. Curtis for plaintiff.",
      "A. Hall Johnston for defendant Penland."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MYRTLE HANIE, Administratrix, v. D. H. PENLAND, Sheriff, and JOE RICE.\n(Filed 25 May, 1927.)\nActions \u2014 Wrongful Death \u2014 Jiegligence\u2014Statutes\u2014Conditions Annexed\u2014 Statute of Limitations.\nThe statutory requirement that action must be brought iu a year to recover damages on account of the wrongful killing of another is a condition annexed thereto, and need not be pleaded as a statute of limitation in defense; and where there is no evidence tending to show that the plaintiff has performed this condition, he may not maintain his action. C. S.. 160.\nCivil action, tried before Schmclc, J., at November Term, 1926, of Buncombe.\nTbe plaintiff is tbe duly appointed administratrix of Garfield Hanie, her husband, who was killed by tbe defendant Joe Eiee on or about 7 April, 1924. Tbe plaintiff further alleged and offered evidence tending to show that Joe Eice was a special deputy of tbe defendant D. H. Pen-land, sheriff of Buncombe County; that on or about 6 April,. 1924, tbe said Joe Eice went to tbe office of B. L. Lyda, a justice of tbe peace of Asheville, and made an affidavit, upon oath, that one.............did unlawfully, etc., maintain and set up a gambling board, to wit, \u201ca puncbboard, etc.\u201d Thereupon, on 6 April, 1924, tbe said justice of tbe peace issued a warrant directed \u201cto any constable or other lawful officer of Buncombe County, commanding tbe arrest of 'John Doe, alias.\u2019 \u201d Thereafter, on 7 April, 1924, the said Joe Eice, special deputy, went to \"Woodfin, on tbe Veaverville road, and saw a man who be was informed was tbe \u201cpuncbboard man.\u201d This unidentified person got in bis car and started to move off. Eice jumped on tbe running board. Tbe occupant of tbe car either pushed Eiee off tbe car or Eice got off, and thereupon drew bis pistol and began to fire at tbe car. Garfield Hanie, plaintiff\u2019s intestate, passed by tbe side of tbe car at that time and was shot by tbe defendant Eice and killed. It does not appear who tbe occupant of tbe ear was, or whether be was tbe \u201cpuncbboard\u201d man or not. Garfield Hanie, plaintiff\u2019s intestate, was an innocent bystander, and bad no connection whatever with tbe transaction. Tbe defendant Eice contended that the shooting of Hanie was an accident. However, be filed no answer, and judgment was taken against him by default. Tbe cause of action alleged by plaintiff against tbe defendant Penland is based upon tbe theory that tbe sheriff is responsible for tbe negligence of bis deputies.\nTbe ninth paragraph of tbe complaint is as follows: \u201cThat by reason of tbe negligence of tbe defendants in tbe manner and respect herein alleged, and as a proximate cause thereof, tbe plaintiff\u2019s intestate was unlawfully and wrongfully killed by tbe defendants above named.\u201d\nAt tbe conclusion of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, there was judgment of non-suit, and tbe plaintiff appealed.\nW. B. Qudger .and Zeb F. Curtis for plaintiff.\nA. Hall Johnston for defendant Penland."
  },
  "file_name": "0800-01",
  "first_page_order": 878,
  "last_page_order": 880
}