{ "id": 8625342, "name": "P. O. LEWIS and ADELAIDE LEWIS v. W. J. MITCHELL, Administrator of W. L. MITCHELL, Deceased", "name_abbreviation": "Lewis v. Mitchell", "decision_date": "1931-04-22", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "652", "last_page": "653", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "200 N.C. 652" } ], "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": "198 N. C., 298", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8606990 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/198/0298-01" ] }, { "cite": "198 N. C., 309", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8607529 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/198/0309-01" ] }, { "cite": "197 N. C., 407", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629261 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/197/0407-01" ] }, { "cite": "176 N. C., 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655836 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/176/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 N. C., 634", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11274795 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/92/0634-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 242, "char_count": 3784, "ocr_confidence": 0.462, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.144891521151196e-08, "percentile": 0.5080676518206274 }, "sha256": "39ea7a15808a16d9e9e327697c70eaa1b677444872637fd9970b05ca71b17d13", "simhash": "1:212b7f5b3f476744", "word_count": 619 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:40:42.579520+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "P. O. LEWIS and ADELAIDE LEWIS v. W. J. MITCHELL, Administrator of W. L. MITCHELL, Deceased." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Brogdes, J.\nThe defendant \u201copened the door\u201d with respect to the evidence relating to personal transactions with the deceased. Consequently the exceptions upon this phase of the case cannot be sustained.. Sumner v. Candler, 92 N. C., 634; Pope v. Pope, 176 N. C., 283; Walston v. Coppersmith, 197 N. C., 407.\nThe defendant also excepted to certain conversations that third parties had with the deceased to the effect that he wanted the feme plaintiff to have his property. The record does not disclose that any of these witnesses had a pecuniary interest in the result of the action. \u201cExclusion does not apply when witness has no interest in the result of the action.\u201d R. R. v. Hegwood, 198 N. C., 309; Conley v. Cabe, 198 N. C., 298.\nExceptions were also taken to certain testimony relating to the value of the land. This evidence was competent upon the question of the value of services rendered by the plaintiffs to defendant\u2019s intestate.\nIndeed, a careful examination of all the exceptions does not disclose reversible error, and the judgment is affirmed.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Brogdes, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Alvin J. Eley for plaintiffs.", "W. W. Rogers and J. C. Cherry for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "P. O. LEWIS and ADELAIDE LEWIS v. W. J. MITCHELL, Administrator of W. L. MITCHELL, Deceased.\n(Filed 22 April, 1931.)\n1. Evidence D 1) \u2014 Where administrator introduces evidence of transaction with decedent adversary party may introduce evidence of such transaction.\nAn administrator of a deceased person \u201copens the door\u201d to the plaintiff in an action against the estate to introduce evidence .of personal transactions and communications by eliciting such evidence beforehand on the trial.\n2. Same \u2014 Testimony of disinterested witnesses as to declarations of decedent held competent.\nTestimony of declarations of a decedent as to certain of his desires in regard to the distribution of his property, relevant to the issue, is competent when testified to by witnesses not interested in the result of the trial when such testimony is otherwise competent.\n3. Wills B b \u2014 Evidence of value of land held competent on question of value of services rendered decedent in action on conti\u2019act to convey.\nIn- an action against the estate of the decedent to recover for services rendered upon the promise of the decedent to devise his lands in compensation, testimony as to the value of the lands is held competent upon the question of the Value of the services rendered decedent.\nCivil actioN, before Sinclair, J., at October Term, 1930, of Hert-eobd.\nThe plaintiffs are husband and wife and brought this action against the administrator of \"W. L. Mitchell, alleging that in August, 1920, the said W. L. Mitchell, deceased, requested plaintiffs to leave their home at Goldsboro, North Carolina, and move to his farm in Hertford County, cultivate, clear and improve said farm and take care of said intestate, with the understanding that the said intestate would make a will, leaving his property to plaintiffs at his death. Plaintiffs further allege that, relying upon said promise, they moved to the home of the defendant\u2019s intestate, cultivated the farm, erected permanent improvements thereon, and cared for said intestate until his death. It was further alleged that no will was made and consequently plaintiffs have not been compensated for services rendered.\nThe administrator filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and further alleging that the deceased, W. L. Mitchell, paid the plaintiffs for his board, and that they were merely tenants on the farm.\nThe verdict of the jury established a contract between the plaintiffs and the deceased Mitchell, as alleged in the complaint, and awarded $500 to the male plaintiff for services and $2,000 to the feme plaintiff.\nProm judgment upon the verdict the defendant appealed.\nAlvin J. Eley for plaintiffs.\nW. W. Rogers and J. C. Cherry for defendant." }, "file_name": "0652-01", "first_page_order": 720, "last_page_order": 721 }