{
  "id": 2221361,
  "name": "In re Will of W. M. EVANS",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Evans",
  "decision_date": "1936-04-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "828",
  "last_page": "829",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "209 N.C. 828"
    }
  ],
  "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": "46 N. C., 23",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8681026
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/46/0023-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 S. E., 298",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 N. C., 159",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8649469
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/103/0159-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 170,
    "char_count": 1643,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.506,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.693406370682654e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3579807162502524
    },
    "sha256": "f970732fa9d8a206ae3daaa832f84c1769157d145df443efa743be7674e09fc5",
    "simhash": "1:1bd6d89ee301a310",
    "word_count": 298
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:34:31.527681+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re Will of W. M. EVANS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAffirmed on authority of Chancey v. Powell, 103 N. C., 159, 9 S. E., 298. \u201cIn the statute of limitations, there is an express exception in favor of the rights of those who may be infants, etc., at the time the right accrues, but if, at that time, there is no disability, although the right may, on the next day, pass to an infant, etc., it is not within the proviso, so that it has grown into a legal adage, \u2018When the statute begins to run it continues to run.\u2019 \u201d Mebane v. Patrick, 46 N. C., 23.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Julius Brown for caveator.",
      "Harding \u25a0& Lee and Albion Dunn for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re Will of W. M. EVANS.\n(Filed 8 April, 1936.)\nLimitation of Actions B d\u2014\nWhere, at the time of the accrual of the cause of action, the person entitled to bring action is not under disability, the statute of limitations will not cease to\u00abrun because thereafter the right passes to an infant.\nAppeal by caveator from Harris, J., at September Term, 1935, of Pitt.\nCaveat proceeding.\nThe facts are these:\n1. In September, 1911, W. M. Evans died leaving a last will and testament in which he named his son, Zeno T. Evans, executor.\n2. On 29 September, 1911, the executor duly probated said will in common form.\n3. On 8 August, 1912, Zeno T. Evans died leaving him surviving a son, Elbert Evans, then about nine months of age.\n4. On 12 January, 1935, Elbert Evans filed caveat to his grandfather\u2019s will.\nThe trial court held that the caveator\u2019s right to file said caveat was barred by the seven-year statute of limitations, C. S., 4158, and so instructed the jury. Exception.\nJudgment on the verdict, from which the caveator appeals, assigning errors.\nJulius Brown for caveator.\nHarding \u25a0& Lee and Albion Dunn for respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0828-01",
  "first_page_order": 890,
  "last_page_order": 891
}