{
  "id": 8632281,
  "name": "MARTHA J. McLAMB v. W. L. ADAMS",
  "name_abbreviation": "McLamb v. Adams",
  "decision_date": "1943-03-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "714",
  "last_page": "715",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "222 N.C. 714"
    }
  ],
  "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": "30 A. L. R., 820",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 N. C., 438",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682339
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/37/0440-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 S. E., 1010",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 N. C., 253",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658557
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/170/0253-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 253,
    "char_count": 4008,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.457,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2073584212824763
    },
    "sha256": "95f6b3e4927838f35e7d25b1deadbba8957582baf69920452dde6b1ae58efbb1",
    "simhash": "1:d78f1f3bf802887b",
    "word_count": 694
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:48:14.759571+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARTHA J. McLAMB v. W. L. ADAMS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Devin, J.\nThe defendant\u2019s only exception is to the judgment. Hence, the single question for decision is whether, upon the facts found by the clerk and confirmed by the judge, the defendant was entitled to the relief sought.\nAt January Term, 1940,. plaintiff McLamb recovered judgment against defendant Adams in sum of $172.49. Previously the plaintiff Martha J. McLamb bad agreed witb ber counsel, Stevens, Farmer & Hill, to assign to tbem one-balf of tbe recovery. It was found by tbe clerk tbat defendant, on 1 February, 1940, paid tbe judgment in full to Martba J. McLamb, $172.49, and took ber receipt acknowledging complete satisfaction of tbe judgment. But tbe clerk found tbat this was without tbe consent and knowledge of plaintiff\u2019s attorneys, and tbat tbe payment did not impair tbe right of tbe attorneys to fifty per cent of tbe judgment and to execution thereon. It appears tbat tbe judgment in McLamb v. Adams was not actually entered on tbe judgment docket until 5 February, 1940, and tbat at tbe same time the assignment of fifty per cent of tbe judgment to tbe attorneys was filed by tbem and noted on tbe record by tbe clerk\u2019s deputy. It also appeared from tbe affidavit of one of plaintiff\u2019s attorneys, introduced in evidence, tbat before tbe judgment was paid be asked defendant\u2019s counsel about payment of tbe judgment, and was informed by tbe latter tbat be thought Adams was going to pay it tbat day to Mrs. McLamb. Asked if ber counsel bad been paid, plaintiff\u2019s counsel replied, \u201cIf you should pay it to Mrs. McLamb, we are protected.\u201d\nThere was no evidence tbat either Adams or bis counsel bad notice or knowledge of tbe assignment pro tanto of tbe judgment to plaintiff\u2019s attorneys. Tbe mere statement \u201cwe are protected\u201d may not be held to constitute notice tbat tbe judgment itself bad been assigned. Under these facts we think tbe judgment, so far as tbe recovery was concerned, was fully satisfied, and tbat, without notice of any assignment of tbe judgment, in whole or in part, payment in full to tbe judgment creditor constituted a discharge.\n\u201cTbe presumption is tbat the plaintiff in a judgment is tbe owner of it, and tbe burden of proof must be on tbe one who alleges tbe contrary.\u201d Brown v. Harding, 170 N. C., 253 (261), 86 S. E., 1010.\nIt was said by Ruffin, C. J., in Hewett v. Outland, 37 N. C., 438: \u201cIt is true tbe (judgment) debtor is not charged witb knowledge of the assignment of a demand tbat is not negotiable, and, therefore, be may rightly pay bis original creditor, until he knows tbat another person has become bis creditor.\u201d See also 30 A. L. R., 820 (note) ; 30 Am. Jur., 892.\nWe think tbe plaintiff\u2019s attorneys as assignees of the judgment are not entitled to execution on tbe judgment, since the recovery has been paid in full to tbe judgment creditor without notice or knowledge of tbe assignment, and tbat tbe order overruling defendant\u2019s motion to recall tbe execution must be\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Devin, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Parker & Lee for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "J. R. Barefoot for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARTHA J. McLAMB v. W. L. ADAMS.\n(Filed 17 March, 1943.)\n1. Judgments \u00a7\u00a7 22c, 37a\u2014\nThe presumption is that the plaintiff in a judgment is the owner of it, and the burden of proof must he on the one who alleges the contrary.\n2. Judgments \u00a7\u00a7 37a, 38, 41\u2014\nA judgment debtor is not charged with knowledge of the assignment of the judgment and, therefore, he may rightly pay his original judgment creditor until he has notice that another has become his creditor. Payment, before docketing, is held valid against an assignment of an interest to attorneys for judgment creditor.\nAppeal by defendant from Stevens, J., at October Term, 1942, of JohNstoN.\nReversed.\nThis was a motion in the cause by the defendant, before the clerk, to recall execution and cancel the judgment on the ground that the judgment had been fully paid. Motion was denied, and defendant appealed to the judge, who confirmed the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the clerk. Defendant appealed to this Court.\nParker & Lee for plaintiff, appellee.\nJ. R. Barefoot for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0714-01",
  "first_page_order": 758,
  "last_page_order": 759
}