{ "id": 8605363, "name": "MRS. CLARA BOURNE, Administratrix of the Estate of FREDERICK T. BOURNE, Deceased, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Bourne v. Southern Railway Co.", "decision_date": "1944-09-20", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "444", "last_page": "446", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "224 N.C. 444" } ], "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": "158 Pac., 477", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "82 So., 213", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "case_ids": [ 580172 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/la/145/0249-01" ] }, { "cite": "115 S. E., 105", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "217 N. W., 904", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "110 So., 97", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "case_ids": [ 1262368 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/la/162/0083-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 So., 816", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "case_ids": [ 1264822 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/la/161/1001-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 So., 239", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "case_ids": [ 1267603 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/la/160/0399-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 So., 346", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "case_ids": [ 1220593 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/fla/106/0323-01" ] }, { "cite": "129 So., 889", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "170 So., 386", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "case_ids": [ 10043660 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so/170/0386-01" ] }, { "cite": "141 So., 783", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "case_ids": [ 10074879 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so/141/0783-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 S. E., 890", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "99 S. W., 329", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "21 Atl., 949", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "92 S. E., 767", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 S. E., 318", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "199 N. C., 335", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8600135 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/199/0335-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 S. E., 683", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "138 N. C., 311", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269344 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/138/0311-01" ] }, { "cite": "161 S. E., 310", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 N. C., 739", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627813 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/201/0739-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 S. E., 962", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 409, "char_count": 6351, "ocr_confidence": 0.5, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.138044852925269e-07, "percentile": 0.5777836854581098 }, "sha256": "b034d8a57a448413380b5ea3dcd4e0ac1d53f3f0d63a06e772c8c1d50b4b103b", "simhash": "1:bd4591cb763a77c9", "word_count": 1097 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:33.218655+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "MRS. CLARA BOURNE, Administratrix of the Estate of FREDERICK T. BOURNE, Deceased, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Barnhill,. J.\nIs the original action, non constat the judgment of nonsuit, still pending in the Superior Court of Buncombe County ? The court below answered no. We concur.\n\u201cNonsuit\u201d is a process of legal mechanics. The case is chopped off. Corcoran v. Transportation Co., 57 S. E., 962. It is a judgment of dismissal. Anderson v. Distributing Co., 55 S. W. (2d), 688. It dismisses the action. Cyclopedic Law Dic., 2nd Ed. (Callaghan). Although it does not necessarily decide the merits of the cause of action, it is a final judgment in that it terminates the action itself.\n\u201cNonsuit is the name of a judgment given against the plaintiff when he is unable to prove a case . . .\u201d Cooper v. Crisco, 201 N. C., 739, 161 S. E., 310. \u201cA nonsuit is but like the blowing out of a candle, which a man at his own pleasure may light again.\u201d Hickory v. R. R., 138 N. C., 311, 50 S. E., 683. If there is no appeal or if the nonsuit is sustained on appeal, plaintiff, if be would prosecute bis claim further, must institute a new action. G. S., 1-25, C. S., 415.\nTbe words \u201cnew action,\u201d \u201cnew suit,\u201d and \u201coriginal suit\u201d as used in tbis statute, Gr. S., 1-25, clearly import tbat a judgment of nonsuit terminates tbe original action. They indicate a difference in tbe two actions tbougb tbe causes may be identical. Cooper v. Crisco, supra. Tbe distinction is observed in decisions referring to tbe causes of action in tbe respective suits, to a restatement of tbe same cause in tbe latter action, and to \u201canother action,\u201d \u201csecond action,\u201d tbe \u201cformer action,\u201d and a \u201csubsequent action.\u201d See Cooper v. Crisco, supra, and cases cited.\nTbe fact tbat defendant bad pleaded a counterclaim does not affect tbe finality of tbe judgment. When tbe defendant, at tbe close of tbe evidence for plaintiff, moved for judgment dismissing tbe action as of nonsuit, it in effect submitted to a voluntary nonsuit on its counterclaim. Gruber v. Ewbanks, 199 N. C., 335, 154 S. E., 318.\nIt cannot put its adversary out of court and at tbe same time retain tbe cause in court. Morse v. Turner, 92 S. E., 767. It elected to move for a dismissal of tbe action by judgment of nonsuit and it announced at tbe time tbat upon tbe granting of tbe motion it would submit to voluntary nonsuit on its counterclaim. Tbe motion was granted and judgment of dismissal was entered. Thus plaintiff\u2019s action and defendant\u2019s counterclaim fall together.\nTbe court may have committed error in dismissing tbe action while tbe counterclaim was pending. If so, it was error and no more. Tbe judgment was entered at tbe instance and upon tbe motion of defendant. It is not now in a position' to insist tbat tbe action is still pending.\nWhile there is some division of opinion on tbis question, tbe weight of authority is in accord with this conclusion. Morse v. Turner, supra; Lumber Co. v. Dalrymple, 21 Atl., 949; McClellan\u2019s Adm\u2019r v. Troendle, 99 S. W., 329; Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co. v. Friedlander Bros., 122 S. E., 890; Hodges v. GMAC, 141 So., 783; Bell v. Leiendecker, 170 So., 386; Finch v. Ekstrom, 1 Pac. (2d), 516; Whitaker v. Wright, 129 So., 889; Crocker v. Chillingworth, 143 So., 346; McMillan v. Lorimer, 107 So., 239; Picard Const. Co. v. Board of Com\u2019rs., 109 So., 816; Erskine v. Gardiner, 110 So., 97; Miller v. Davis, 217 N. W., 904; Chavez v. Ade, 34 Pac. (2d), 670; Gafford v. Twitty, 115 S. E., 105; State v. C. S. Jackson & Co., 82 So., 213; Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co. v. Purcell Safe Co., 158 Pac., 477.\nTbe judgment below is\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Barnhill,. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Jordan \u2022& Horner and Williams \u25a0& Coche for plaintiff, appellee.", "W. T. Joyner and Jones, Ward & Jones for defendant, appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "MRS. CLARA BOURNE, Administratrix of the Estate of FREDERICK T. BOURNE, Deceased, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.\n(Filed 20 September, 1944.)\n1. Trial \u00a7 22a: Judgments \u00a7 33a\u2014\nAlthough a judgment of nonsuit does not necessarily decide the merits of the cause of action, it is a final judgment in that it terminates the action. If there is no appeal or if the nonsuit is sustained on appeal, plaintiff, if he would prosecute his claim further, must institute a new action. G. S., 1-25.\n2. Trial \u00a7 25\u2014\nWhen a defendant, at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, moves for judgment dismissing the action as of nonsuit, he in effect submits to a voluntary nonsuit on any counterclaim set up by him.\nAppeal by defendant from Nettles, J., at April Term, 1944, of Bira-combe.\nAffirmed.\nCivil action under the Federal Employers\u2019 Liability Act for damages for wrongful death heard on motion to dismiss for that another action by the same parties for the same cause of action is now pending in the same court.\nThe plaintiff instituted suit against the defendant in the Superior Court of Buncombe County, 16 October, 1941, and filed complaint setting-out a cause of action for damages for wrongful death arising out of the negligence of the defendant.\nDefendant answered denying negligence on its part and pleading a counterclaim, alleging it bad been damaged by tbe negligence and wrongful conduct of plaintiff\u2019s intestate while wrongfully acting as engineer. Plaintiff replied thereto.\nThe case was heard before Clement, J., at the April, 1943, Term of the Superior Court of Buncombe County. At the close of the evidence for plaintiff, the defendant moved for judgment as in case of nonsuit. The motion was sustained and judgment was entered \u201cthat the action be, and the same is hereby nonsuited and dismissed at the cost of the plaintiff.\u201d The judgment contains further provision as follows: \u201cThe Court of its own motion orders a mistrial as to the counterclaim and continues the same.\u201d\nThe plaintiff excepted and appealed to the Supreme Court, and her appeal was dismissed at the Fall Term, 1943.\nThe plaintiff, on 5 October, 1943, instituted this action against the defendant, setting out in her complaint substantially the same cause of action as alleged in the original suit. The defendant answered and pleaded: (a) the pendency of another action, and move for dismissal for that reason, and (b) res adjudicata by virtue of the judgment in the first cause. It also denied any negligence on its part and reasserted its counterclaim for damages sustained.\nThe motion of defendant to dismiss the action for that there is another action pending came on to be heard in the court below and was overruled. Defendant excepted and appealed.\nJordan \u2022& Horner and Williams \u25a0& Coche for plaintiff, appellee.\nW. T. Joyner and Jones, Ward & Jones for defendant, appellant." }, "file_name": "0444-01", "first_page_order": 492, "last_page_order": 494 }