{
  "id": 8627289,
  "name": "LILLIAN B. LITTLE, Administratrix of the Estate of E. E. LITTLE, Deceased, v. C. L. RHYNE and Wife, MRS. C. L. RHYNE (BERTHA RHODES RHYNE)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Little v. Rhyne",
  "decision_date": "1937-04-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "431",
  "last_page": "434",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 N.C. 431"
    }
  ],
  "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": "174 N. C., 118",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11252716
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/174/0118-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 N. C., 115",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659254
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/131/0115-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 N. C., 330",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660048
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/144/0330-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 N. C., 166",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11268932
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/138/0166-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 346,
    "char_count": 7288,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.482,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.980723408899069e-08,
      "percentile": 0.37190295650441396
    },
    "sha256": "7978e8ffa89dee8e1d3d77c78b8b10f3df3daaf17f0c2713f338950b269df3a0",
    "simhash": "1:588dce87e2bf905b",
    "word_count": 1234
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:14.990140+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LILLIAN B. LITTLE, Administratrix of the Estate of E. E. LITTLE, Deceased, v. C. L. RHYNE and Wife, MRS. C. L. RHYNE (BERTHA RHODES RHYNE)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ClaRKSON, J.\nAt the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, on motion of defendants, the court below allowed defendants\u2019 motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit. C. S., 567. In this we think there was error.\nThe plaintiff alleged in her complaint: \u201cThat E. E. Little, late of Iredell County, North Carolina, died intestate on-or about 25 January, 1933, and that the plaintiff Lillian B. Little, administratrix of the estate of E. E. Little, was duly appointed as such by the clerk of Superior Court of Iredell County, North Carolina, on 31 January, 1933, and is now in the active discharge of her duties as such administratrix.\u201d\nThe defendants in their answer say: \u201cThat the allegations contained in the first paragraph of the complaint are true.\u201d\nThe amended answer of Mrs. C. L. Rhyne states: \u201cThat paragraph 1 of the complaint is true and admitted.\u201d\nN. C. Code, 1935 (Michie), section 543, is as follows: \u201cAllegations not denied, deemed true. \u2014 Every material allegation of the complaint not controverted by an answer, and every material allegation of new matter in the answer, constituting a counterclaim, not controverted by the reply is, for the purposes of the action, taken as true. But the allegation of new matter in the answer, not relating to a counterclaim, or of new matter in reply, is to be deemed controverted by the adverse party as upon a direct denial or avoidance, as the case requires.\u201d\nN. O. Practice and Procedure in Civil Oases (McIntosh), pp. 366-7, is as follows: \u201cThe material facts are those alleged in the complaint, and which the plaintiff must prove in order to establish his cause of action, and, when one of these facts is not denied in the answer, it is as effectual as if found by a jury; and it is not necessary to introduce the pleadings in evidence to show that there was no denial. Where the complaint alleges a material fact upon information and belief, and the answer admits such allegation, it is an admission of the facts alleged, and not simply of the information and belief. . . . For determining the cause of action or defense, and the material facts which are controverted, each party is bound by his pleading, as a conclusive or judicial admission, and it is not a question of evidence.\u201d West v. A. F. Messick Gro. Co., 138 N. C., 166; Leathers v. Blackwell Durham Tob. Co., 144 N. C., 330; Page v. Life Ins. Co. of Va., 131 N. C., 115; Adams v. Beasley, 174 N. C., 118.\nThe defendants contend: \u201cThat the plaintiff should have introduced evidence to the jury and to the court showing that she was the duly appointed and qualified administratrix of the estate of E. E. Little, deceased, and having failed to do so, the court was entirely right in granting the motion of nonsuit at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence. However, if the court should be of the opinion that when the allegations of the complaint are admitted, or are not denied, that no proof need be offered as contended by the plaintiff in this action, then we call the court\u2019s attention to the fact that the plaintiff did not allege in the complaint that the plaintiff was the duly appointed and qualified adminis-tratrix of the estate of E. E. Little; and, of course, was not admitted in the answer.\u201d\nIt goes without saying that plaintiff must be the duly appointed and qualified administratrix of the estate of E. E. Little. We think the allegations in tbe complaint admitted in tlie answers sbow tbis. Tbe plaintiff alleges that sbe was \u201cduly appointed,\u201d and goes further and alleges, \u201cAnd is now in tbe active discharge of her duties as such admin-istratrix.\u201d Liberally construed, as our pleadings are, we think tbis language implies that sbe \u201cqualified.\u201d Tbe contention of defendants is too technical, and cannot be sustained.\nFor tbe reasons given, tbe judgment of tbe court below is\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ClaRKSON, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Baymer & Baymer for plaintiff.",
      "Lewis & Lewis for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LILLIAN B. LITTLE, Administratrix of the Estate of E. E. LITTLE, Deceased, v. C. L. RHYNE and Wife, MRS. C. L. RHYNE (BERTHA RHODES RHYNE).\n(Filed 7 April, 1937.)\nExecutors and Administrators \u00a7 10: Pleadings \u00a7 8a \u2014 Plaintiff need not introduce proof of allegations which are admitted to he true in answer.\nPlaintiff alleged that she was duly appointed administratrix of her intestate, and that she was then in the active discharge of her duties as such administratrix, which allegations were admitted to be true in defendants\u2019 answers. Held: The admission of the allegations \u2022 establishes them, N. 0. Code, 643, and mal\u00edes it unnecessary for plaintiff to introduce evidence in support thereof, and the allegations are sufficiently broad to establish plaintiff\u2019s right to maintain the action as administratrix, and a contention that the allegations were insufficient in that it was not alleged that plaintiff had duly qualified, is untenable, the allegation that plaintiff was actively engaged in the discharge of her duties as administratrix, liberally construed, being sufficient to imply qualification.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Sink, J., at January Term, 1937, of Ikedell.\nEeversed.\nThis is a civil action brought by the plaintiff to recover judgment on two certain notes alleged to have been executed and delivered by the defendants to one D. P. Ehodes, and transferred and assigned and negotiated by the said D. P. Rhodes, by blank endorsement, to the plaintiff\u2019s intestate before maturity, which allegation is denied by the defendant\u2019s answer.\nIt was admitted of record at the May, 1936, Term of Superior Court for Iredell County that the defendants executed said note, and that the endorsement of D. P. Rhodes was genuine. Counsel for the defendants, upon request, admitted in writing that the signatures of the defendants to said notes were genuine on 29 January, 1936. Both of these admissions were introduced in evidence at the time of the trial, as were the two notes upon which the suit was brought.\nIt was alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff\u2019s intestate died intestate on 25 January, 1933, and that she was duly appointed as adminis-tratrix of the estate of E. E. Little on 21 January, 1933, and was, at the time the suit was instituted, actively engaged in the discharge of her duties as such administratrix. It is admitted in the defendants\u2019 answer and in the amended answer of the defendant Mrs. O. L. Rhyne that this allegation is true.\nAt the conclusion of the plaintiff\u2019s evidence, the defendants moved for a judgment of nonsuit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to make out her case in that no proof has been offered that she was, in fact, the administratrix of the estate of E. E. Little. The defendants\u2019 motion was allowed by the court, and judgment of nonsuit entered accordingly, whereupon the. plaintiff excepted, assigned error, and appealed to the Supreme Court.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s exceptions and assignments of error are as follows :\n\u201c1. That the court erred in allowing the motion for judgment of nonsuit at the conclusion of the plaintiff\u2019s evidence.\n\u201c2. That the court erred in holding that, upon the evidence presented, the plaintiff had failed to make out her case for the reason that she had not offered proof that she was in fact administratrix of the estate of E. E. Little, although this fact was alleged in the complaint and admitted in 'both answers of the defendants.\u201d\nBaymer & Baymer for plaintiff.\nLewis & Lewis for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0431-01",
  "first_page_order": 497,
  "last_page_order": 500
}