{
  "id": 8632836,
  "name": "BARBABA ANN OLDHAM, By Her Next Friend, RUFUS W. REYNOLDS, v. J. FRANK ROSS and ANNIE V. ROSS, Administrators of the Estate of JULIUS F. ROSS, Deceased",
  "name_abbreviation": "Oldham ex rel. Reynolds v. Ross",
  "decision_date": "1939-01-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "696",
  "last_page": "698",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "214 N.C. 696"
    }
  ],
  "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": "206 N. C., 567",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631720
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/206/0567-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 S. E., 291",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "165 N. C., 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658634
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/165/0255-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 S. E., 889",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 N. C., 21",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655048
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/181/0021-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 S. E., 419",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N. C., 102",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8596032
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0102-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 S. E., 689",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 N. C., 371",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8608609
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0371-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 281,
    "char_count": 4290,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.488,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3527209692633823e-07,
      "percentile": 0.633876531025554
    },
    "sha256": "bed30aacf2dcfb1363b9cc5d0549bb45ebd09c5ccf2f412a6862c6ff78084570",
    "simhash": "1:7668c4fe90d3ca15",
    "word_count": 714
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:13.292364+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BARBABA ANN OLDHAM, By Her Next Friend, RUFUS W. REYNOLDS, v. J. FRANK ROSS and ANNIE V. ROSS, Administrators of the Estate of JULIUS F. ROSS, Deceased."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nIt is not specifically alleged in the complaint that the alleged agreement made by defendants\u2019 intestate was or was not in writing and that the complaint does not sufficiently state a cause of action is not challenged by demurrer, the accepted method of raising this issue of law. C. S., 511. A motion for judgment on the pleadings is one ordinarily interposed by the litigant seeking affirmative relief. When so interposed it admits the facts alleged in defense and challenges the sufficiency of such facts to constitute a defense. Barnes v. Trust Co., 194 N. C., 371, 139 S. E., 689; Pridgen v. Pridgen, 190 N. C., 102, 129 S. E., 419; Churchwell v. Trust Co., 181 N. C., 21, 105 S. E., 889. Judgment cannot be rendered upon the pleadings against the party seeking affirmative relief when the allegations upon which the prayer for relief is based are denied. Every fact necessary to be established as a basis for the judgment asked must be admitted either by a failure to deny specific allegations or by specific admissions of the facts. Here the defendants specifically denied both the contract and the rendition of services. See Alston v. Hill, 165 N. C., 255, 81 S. E., 291; Dix-Downing v. White, 206 N. C., 567.\nThe judgment below is\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. Henry Hunter and Harry Rockwell for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Douglas & Douglas, T. J. Hill, and York & Boyd for defendants, appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BARBABA ANN OLDHAM, By Her Next Friend, RUFUS W. REYNOLDS, v. J. FRANK ROSS and ANNIE V. ROSS, Administrators of the Estate of JULIUS F. ROSS, Deceased.\n(Filed 4 January, 1939.)\n1. Pleadings \u00a7 28\u2014\nOrdinarily a motion for judgment on the pleadings is interposed by the party seeking affirmative relief, in which case it admits facts alleged in defense and challenges the sufficiency of such facts to constitute a defense.\n3. Same\u2014\nJudgment on the pleadings cannot be rendered against the party seeking affirmative relief when the allegations upon which the prayer for relief is based are denied, since such judgment must be based upon facts established by failure of specific denial or by specific admissions.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Phillips, J., at October Term, 1938, of G-uilfoed.\nReversed.\nTbis is a civil action to recover damages for breach, of contract alleged to have been made by defendants\u2019 intestate to devise property to plaintiff.\nThe material allegations of the complaint requiring consideration are in substance as follows: That the parents of the plaintiff cultivated the lands of the defendants\u2019 intestate on a half share basis, and rendered various services to the deceased, who was aged and infirm; that the deceased fell and broke bis arm and was removed to the home of plaintiff\u2019s parents for treatment; that be developed a severe attack of pneumonia, during which time they nursed and eared for him; that upon bis recovery the 'deceased returned to bis home, and, in about two months thereafter, approached plaintiff\u2019s parents, expressed appreciation for their care, service, and attention, and requested that he be allowed to come and live with them and have them to continue to look after him; that he stated that he had considerable property, and that if plaintiff\u2019s parents would permit him to remove to their home and they would look after him they would be well compensated for the services they had theretofore and would thereafter render, and stated that after they had been fully compensated he would leave such property as he might have remaining to the plaintiff; that in consequence of such promises, plaintiff\u2019s parents took the deceased into their home and rendered to him such services as were incident to the care and attention of an aged and infirm person who was incapable of looking after himself; and that the deceased died without fulfilling his promise to devise his property to the plaintiff.\nEach and every allegation in the complaint relating to the alleged contract or promises, and relating to the services rendered, is denied in the answer.\nAfter filing answer, in which the material allegations are denied, the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings. Upon the hearing of the motion judgment was entered allowing the motion and decreeing that the plaintiff have and recover nothing of the defendants. Plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nW. Henry Hunter and Harry Rockwell for plaintiff, appellant.\nDouglas & Douglas, T. J. Hill, and York & Boyd for defendants, appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0696-01",
  "first_page_order": 764,
  "last_page_order": 766
}