{
  "id": 8615344,
  "name": "MAHALAH EDNEY, Administratrix, v. RUTH EDNEY MATTHEWS et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Edney v. Matthews",
  "decision_date": "1940-09-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "171",
  "last_page": "172",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "218 N.C. 171"
    }
  ],
  "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": "102 S. E., 196",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 N. C., 180",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655380
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/179/0180-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 N. C., 15",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272528
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/93/0015-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 S. E., 24",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 N. C., 510",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221466
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0510-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 S. E., 592",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 N. C., 90",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11268796
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/138/0090-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 256,
    "char_count": 4020,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.486,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.119645932871841e-08,
      "percentile": 0.381435558598204
    },
    "sha256": "b71cdc32b9c6f79c48bb5dcad4a5fa0ee4dd73b55140daaa3203d62185fdf550",
    "simhash": "1:dd5fc79630877680",
    "word_count": 672
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:22:12.547739+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MAHALAH EDNEY, Administratrix, v. RUTH EDNEY MATTHEWS et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nAs was said in Fisher v. Trust Co., 138 N. C., 90, 50 S. E., 592, the proceedings herein have been \u201csomewhat- eccentric and irregular.\u201d A special proceeding before the clerk, instituted by the personal representative of a decedent to sell land to make assets, is, by consent, converted into an administration suit and heard by the judge. C. S., 135. Rigsbee v. Brogden, 209 N. C., 510, 184 S. E., 24. If the parties are content to proceed in this way, perhaps the court ought not to object sua sponie. Its jurisdiction is not questioned. Tillett v. Aydlett, 93 N. C., 15.\nThere is objection, however, on the part of the petitioner, to the order requiring that she come in and account for certain moneys paid to her individually or as the widow of the deceased. On the record facts, the objection would seem to be untenable. C. S., 547. The apparent conversion of the proceeding, by consent, into an administration suit did not render it a controversy without action, C. S., 626, wherein the authority of the court is limited or confined to the matters submitted. Waters v. Boyd, 179 N. C., 180, 102 S. E., 196.\nObjections are also made to several items in the account and to the findings of the court in respect thereof. These objections cannot avail in the face of the stipulation of the parties. It would serve no useful purpose to deal with them seriatim.\nUpon the record as presented, the judgment of the Superior Court will not be disturbed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "P. E. Bell for plaintiffs, appellants.",
      "W. D. Pruden for defendants, appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MAHALAH EDNEY, Administratrix, v. RUTH EDNEY MATTHEWS et al.\n(Filed 18 September, 1940.)\nExecutors and Administrators \u00a7\u00a7 13a, 31 \u2014 Agreement held to have converted proceeding to sell lands to make assets into an administration suit, and petitioner could not object to being made party in individual capacity.\nIn this proceeding to sell land to make assets, defendants jjleaded the statute of limitations as to certain indebtedness alleged in petitioner\u2019s bill of particulars and asked for an accounting, and the parties thereupon agreed that the matters in controversy should be heard by the judge without a jury upon an agreed statement of facts, and that the judge might find such additional facts as he might consider necessary to a complete determination of the matters in controversy. Held: The proceeding was converted by consent into an administration suit, C. S., 135, and petitioner is precluded by the agreement from objecting to an order requiring her to be made a party in her individual capacity, C. S., 547, and to account for certain money paid to her either individually or as the widow of the deceased, the agreement not constituting the proceeding a controversy without action in which the authority of the court is limited to the matters submitted, O. S., 626.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Johnston, Special Judge, at April-May Special Term, 1940, of ChowaN.\nPetition by administratrix to sell land to make assets.\nUpon motion of tbe defendants, tbe plaintiff was required to make ber petition more specific and to add thereto a\u2019bill of particulars. Prom this order of tbe clerk, tbe administratrix appealed to tbe Superior Court in term.\nTbe order of tbe clerk was approved, whereupon tbe petitioner filed an amended petition, accompanying it with a bill of particulars. Tbe defendants answered, pleaded tbe statute of limitations as to certain alleged indebtedness and asked for an accounting.\nIt was agreed tbat the matters in controversy should be heard by the judge, without a jury, upon an agreed statement of facts, and further that \u201cthe judge may find such additional facts as he may consider necessary to a complete determination of the matters in controversy.\u201d\nIn apt time, the defendants made motion that the administratrix be made a party in her individual capacity. Motion allowed; exception.\nUpon the facts agreed and additional facts found by the judge, there was judgment of accounting, from which the plaintiffs appeal, assigning-errors.\nP. E. Bell for plaintiffs, appellants.\nW. D. Pruden for defendants, appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0171-01",
  "first_page_order": 239,
  "last_page_order": 240
}