{
  "id": 8613213,
  "name": "L. M. GRIMES v. CITY OF LEXINGTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Grimes v. City of Lexington",
  "decision_date": "1940-01-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "735",
  "last_page": "737",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "216 N.C. 735"
    }
  ],
  "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": "48 S. E., 636",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 N. C., 258",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659604
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/136/0258-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 S. E., 716",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 N. C., 410",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659535
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/123/0410-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 S. E., 456",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 N. C., 70",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658902
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/131/0070-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 S. E., 293",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 N. C., 616",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616142
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/212/0616-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 S. E., 687",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 N. C., 481",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653447
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/113/0481-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 N. C., 74",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8684796
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/91/0074-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 S. E., 775",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 N. C., 426",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660746
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/136/0426-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 N. C., 137",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1955250
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/65/0137-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 N. C., 151",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8688239
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/90/0151-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 S. E., 112",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 N. C., 337",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11253372
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/145/0337-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 308,
    "char_count": 5115,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.494,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4731880121196255
    },
    "sha256": "66ef00660ff7e630c8c1a159d54c6d7889be51f182428d788823d24debb35fb0",
    "simhash": "1:a84b9ba3c92e64a5",
    "word_count": 880
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:30.134660+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "L. M. GRIMES v. CITY OF LEXINGTON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe case turns on the sufficiency of the defendant\u2019s answer to withstand a motion for. judgment on the pleadings.\nFirstly, it is contended that the disavowal of information sufficient to form a belief and the cautious denial \u201cfor the purposes as alleged by the plaintiff,\u201d render the pleading ineffectual in law, Streator v. Streator, 145 N. C., 337, 59 S. E., 112, and thus entitle the plaintiff to judgment for want of an answer as a matter of right. Alford v. McCormac, 90 N. C., 151; Harkey v. Houston, 65 N. C., 137.\nThe position would doubtless he correct if all the material allegations of the complaint related to personal transactions, which are required to be answered positively and not on information and belief. Avery v. Stewart, 136 N. C., 426, 48 S. E., 775; Machine Co. v. Mfg. Co., 91 N. C., 74. Here, however, the material allegation that plaintiff is the holder in due course of certain bonds issued by the defendant may be traversed on information and belief. C. S., 519; Campbell v. Patton, 113 N. C., 481, 18 S. E., 687.\nSecondly, it is asserted that the City Manager of the city of Lexington, whose duties are administrative only, has no authority to verify an answer for the defendant, and this position prevailed in the court below. \"We think otherwise.\nTrue, it was held in Nevins v. Lexington, 212 N. C., 616, 194 S. E., 293, that the City Manager of the city of Lexington was not the \u201cproper municipal authority\u201d or the \u201clawful municipal authority\u201d to whom a claim against the city should be presented for audit and allowance, as required by C. S., 1330, before an action could be maintained thereon. The trial court concluded, therefore, that if the City Manager had no authority to receive plaintiff\u2019s claim for audit and allowance, he would not be permitted to verify an answer denying it. The conclusion is a non sequitur.\nIt is provided by C. S., 531, that when a corporation is a party, the verification of a pleading may be made by \u201cany officer, or managing or local agent thereof upon whom summons might be served.\u201d And C. S., 483, provides that if the action is against a corporation, summons shall be served by delivering copy thereof \u201cto the president or other head of the corporation . . . managing or local agent thereof.\u201d It follows, therefore, that as the City Manager of the defendant is its \u201cmanaging or local agent,\u201d he is authorized to verify its answer filed herein. Best v. Mortgage Co., 131 N. C., 70, 42 S. E., 456.\nFormerly, it was held that under section 258 of the Code, an officer of a corporation was alone authorized to make verification of a pleading-in court. Phifer v. Ins. Co., 123 N. C., 410, 31 S. E., 716. However, this section was amended by ch. 610, Public Laws 1901, and now provides that when a corporation is a party, the verification of a pleading may be made by any \u201cmanaging or local agent thereof.\u201d Godwin v. Tel. Co., 136 N. C., 258, 48 S. E., 636.\nThere was error in treating the answer as insufficient in law to raise an issue of fact.\nError.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Burgin & Pickard for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "P. V. Critcher for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "L. M. GRIMES v. CITY OF LEXINGTON.\n(Filed 3 January, 1940.)\n1. Pleadings \u00a7\u00a7 7, 28 \u2014 Allegation not relating to personal transaction may be denied on information and belief.\nPlaintiff instituted this action to recover interest on certain refunding bonds issued by defendant municipality, alleging he was the holder in due course and that proper demand for payment had been made and refused. Defendant stated in answer to each material allegation of the complaint \u201cthat the defendant does not have sufficient information to form a belief and, therefore, for the purposes alleged by plaintiff, denies the same.\u201d Held: Since the material allegation that plaintiff is a holder in due course of said bonds is not an allegation relating' to a personal transaction, it may be traversed on information and belief, G. S., 519, and the granting of plaintiff\u2019s motion for judgment on the pleadings was error.\n2. Municipal Corporations \u00a7 48\u2014\nThe city manager of a municipal corporation is its \u201cmanaging or local agent\u201d and is authorized to verify the municipality\u2019s answer in an action instituted against it. C. S., 581, 483.\nAppeal by defendant from Sinclair, Emergency Judge, at May Term, 1939, of Davidson.\nCivil action to recover interest on bonds.\nTbe complaint alleges that the plaintiff is the holder in due course of certain refunding bonds issued by the defendant; that there is now due and owing the plaintiff by the defendant the sum of $3,311.91 as evidenced by past due coupons and interest thereon; that proper demand for payment has been made and refused, etc. The complaint was duly verified.\nAn answer was filed by the defendant, verified hy the City Manager, stating in answer to each material allegation of the complaint, \u201cthat the defendant does not have sufficient information to form a belief and, therefore, for the purposes alleged by the plaintiff, denies the same.\u201d\nFrom judgment on the pleadings for want of denial and properly verified answer, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nBurgin & Pickard for plaintiff, appellee.\nP. V. Critcher for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0735-01",
  "first_page_order": 801,
  "last_page_order": 803
}