{
  "id": 8604313,
  "name": "A. B. MORRIS v. BOGUE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and L. B. WEST",
  "name_abbreviation": "Morris v. Bogue Development Corp.",
  "decision_date": "1927-09-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "279",
  "last_page": "280",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 N.C. 279"
    }
  ],
  "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": "172 N. C., 37",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11252219
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/172/0037-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 N. C., 275",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655840
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/182/0275-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 N. C., 318",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270918
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/150/0318-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 N. C., 69",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656276
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/120/0069-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 N. C., 267",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652783
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/113/0267-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 N. C., 83",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682770
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/89/0083-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 N. C., 356",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8692322
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/87/0356-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 N. C., 472",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652383
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/140/0472-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 240,
    "char_count": 2973,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.475,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3104615600384413e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6243611114007033
    },
    "sha256": "a18970b123b6848f434cbbd589c751be7cb52210472db6c4cb58a602a5336701",
    "simhash": "1:39aacdf4d68aa306",
    "word_count": 515
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:29.544042+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. B. MORRIS v. BOGUE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and L. B. WEST."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ClabKsoN, J.\nTbis is a civil action brought by plaintiff against defendant to recover $1,000. Tbe amended complaint alleges \u201cbeing tbe brokerage due tbe plaintiff for bis services, time and skill.\u201d\nFor tbe purpose of impeacbment, tbe defendant offered in evidence tbe original, or first, complaint filed in tbe action. Tbis was objected to by plaintiff, and sustained by tbe court below. In tbis we tbink there was error.\nIn Norcum v. Savage, 140 N. C., 472, it was decided: Where defendant bad been permitted to file an amended answer, tbe original answer containing admissions was admissible. Adams v. Utley, 87 N. C., 356; Guy v. Manuel, 89 N. C., 83; Cummings v. Hoffman, 113 N. C., 267; Gossler v. Wood, 120 N. C., 69; Willis v. Tel. Co., 150 N. C., 318; White v. Hines, 182 N. C., 275; Weston v. Typewriter Co., 183 N. C., p. 1.\nIn Guy v. Manuel, 89 N. C., at p. 84, quoting from Adams v. Utley, supra, it is said: \u201cIt was held that tbe evidence was competent, and that Tbe admissions of a party are always evidence against him, and tbe fact that they are contained in tbe pleadings filed in tbe cause does not affect its competency.\u201d But tbe defendant\u2019s 'counsel insist that that case is distinguishable from tbis, because there tbe answers were verified by tbe defendant, and in tbis, they are simply signed by counsel without verification. It is a distinction without a practical difference. For tbe admissions of attorneys in tbe conduct of an action are always admissible in evidence against their clients, especially when tbe admissions are of record.\u201d\nIn Ledford v. Power Co., ante, at p. 102, it is said: \u201cThe pleading was competent, although in another case \u2014 a declaration of tbe party. 22 C. J., sec. 374(3); Bloxham v. Timber Corp., 172 N. C., 37; Alsworth v. Richmond Cedar Works, 172 N. C., p. 17; Pope v. Allis, 115 U. S., p. 353.\u201d\nFor tbe reasons given, there must be a\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ClabKsoN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Q. R. Wheatley and J. F. Duncan for plaintiff.",
      "E. H. Gorham and Cow per, Whitaker & Allen for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. B. MORRIS v. BOGUE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and L. B. WEST.\n(Filed 28 September, 1927.)\n1. Evidence \u2014 Pleadings\u2014Amendments\u2014Admissions.\nIn a civil action to recover for services rendered wjiere an amendment to tbe complaint bas been allowed and filed by tbe plaintiff, the allegations of tbe original complaint when contradictory to tbe plaintiff\u2019s position upon the trial are competent evidence of admissions when relevant and having that effect.\n2. Same \u2014 Attorney and Client \u2014 Principal and Agent.\nWhere the original complaint has been amended its allegations are competent as admissions of plaintiff, when falling within the rule, though the pleading has been signed only by the plaintiff\u2019s attorney and not signed or verified by him, it being within the scope of the authorized acts of the attorneys and a part of the court records in the case.\nAppeal by Bogue Development Corporation from Cranmer, J., and a jury, at June Term, 1927, of Cartebet.\nNew trial.\nQ. R. Wheatley and J. F. Duncan for plaintiff.\nE. H. Gorham and Cow per, Whitaker & Allen for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0279-01",
  "first_page_order": 347,
  "last_page_order": 348
}