{
  "id": 8628405,
  "name": "J. W. JACKSON, Administrator, v. D. J. THOMAS, Administrator",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jackson v. Thomas",
  "decision_date": "1937-05-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "634",
  "last_page": "635",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 N.C. 634"
    }
  ],
  "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": "150 S. E., 184",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 N. C., 628",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630784
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/197/0628-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 S. E., 243",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 N. C., 642",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651501
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/108/0642-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 S. E., 364",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 N. C., 252",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625605
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/210/0252-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 N. C., 242",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276962
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/63/0242-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 S. E., 127",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 N. C., 510",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655525
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/119/0510-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 206,
    "char_count": 2593,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.491,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.89950402824256e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3086834406175804
    },
    "sha256": "2136ee9a14417504f03574a65c2df29521f626ea432602f003452f3bc728eb6e",
    "simhash": "1:1c4a3b925c1e1879",
    "word_count": 451
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:14.990140+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. W. JACKSON, Administrator, v. D. J. THOMAS, Administrator."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nPlaintiff\u2019s evidence tends to show a subrogated claim for funeral expenses, Ray v. Honeycutt, 119 N. C., 510, 26 S. E., 127, 60 C. J., 725, a legacy due plaintiff\u2019s intestate, Redmond v. Burroughs, 63 N. C., 242, and undistributed assets of the estate. In re Estate of Bost, ante, 440; Caffey v. Osborne, 210 N. C., 252, 186 S. E., 364. This would seem to defeat the motion for nonsuit, as none of the statutes of limitations is a complete bar upon the facts presently appearing of record. Moreover, the plea of the statutes of limitations would seem to be bad, Turner v. Shuffler, 108 N. C., 642, 13 S. E., 243, except, perhaps, as it may relate to C. S., 101, which is not available as against undistributed assets other than costs. In re Estate of Bost, supra.\nA demurrer to the evidence goes to plaintiff\u2019s entire right to recover, and may not be sustained, if, in any aspect or to any extent a cause of action within the pleadings is made out. C. S., 567; Moseley v. R. R., 197 N. C., 628, 150 S. E., 184.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "K. R. Hoyle and 8. R. Hoyle for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "W. R. Clegg for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. W. JACKSON, Administrator, v. D. J. THOMAS, Administrator.\n(Filed 19 May, 1937.)\n1. Executors and Administrators \u00a7 17: Limitation of Actions \u00a7 10\u2014\nAn action against an administrator on a subrogated claim for funeral expenses and to recover a legacy is not completely barred by any statute of limitations, even when claim is not filed within twelve months from notice, when plaintiff shows undistributed assets of the estate. O. S., 101.\n2. Trial \u00a7 24\u2014\nA demurrer to the evidence goes to. plaintiff\u2019s entire right to recover, and may not be sustained if, in any aspect or to any extent, a cause of action within the pleadings is made out. C. S., 567.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Rousseau, J., at September Term, 1936, of Moobe.\nCivil action to recover legacy and funeral expenses advanced by plaintiff\u2019s intestate at request of defendant administrator.\nPlaintiff proffered evidence tending to show that his intestate paid the funeral expenses of defendant\u2019s intestate, at the request of the defendant administrator on the latter\u2019s promise to repay the same, which has not been done and that the undistributed assets of the estate are sufficient to care for plaintiff\u2019s claims.\nThere was no plea of plene administravit, but defendant \u201cpleads the one-year statute and the three-year statute and every other statute of limitations known to the law in bar of said claim.\u201d\nFrom judgment of nonsuit entered at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, he appeals, assigning errors.\nK. R. Hoyle and 8. R. Hoyle for plaintiff, appellant.\nW. R. Clegg for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0634-01",
  "first_page_order": 700,
  "last_page_order": 701
}