{ "id": 8626086, "name": "SOL WILLIAMS, Admr., v. McCULLERS YOUNG et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Young", "decision_date": "1947-05-21", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "472", "last_page": "474", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "227 N.C. 472" } ], "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": "79 S. E., 977", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "163 N. C., 464", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272135 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/163/0464-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 S. E., 424", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "163 N. C., 175", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271119 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/163/0175-01" ] }, { "cite": "126 S. E., 742", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "189 N. C., 301", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654121 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/189/0301-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 S. E., 275", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "142 N. C., 277", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651982 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/142/0277-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 N. C., 263", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8692705 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/75/0263-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 S. E., 500", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "181 N. C., 435", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656391 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/181/0435-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 S. E., 629", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "157 N. C., 13", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656234 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/157/0013-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 S. E., 111", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "132 N. C., 604", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8660595 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/132/0604-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 334, "char_count": 5242, "ocr_confidence": 0.451, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.061447019797991e-08, "percentile": 0.31923405573066227 }, "sha256": "bf7ff3f6c3b473712f24c15320a724fc3ea2fec077e57160b511fe2d97e76016", "simhash": "1:26702afd7361b42f", "word_count": 924 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:20:04.384970+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "SOL WILLIAMS, Admr., v. McCULLERS YOUNG et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe plaintiff, administrator, is a son of Eliza Williams, who died 21 March, 1946. Lena Young is a granddaughter of the deceased. It is admitted that tbe property in question, a cow and calf, was originally owned by tbe deceased. Tbe intervener claims tbe property by gift inter vivos from ber grandmother some fifteen months before her death.\nThere was evidence on behalf of tbe intervener tending to support ber claim to tbe property by gift inter vivos. Gross v. Smith, 132 N. C., 604, 44 S. E., 111; Patterson v. Trust Co., 157 N. C., 13, 72 S. E., 629. Lenora Eoster, a disinterested witness, testified that she was present and beard tbe deceased say: \u201cLena you can have my cow.\u201d They were then at tbe home of Sol Williams. \u201cTbe cow was there too. ... I didn\u2019t bear ber say anything about lending tbe cow to Lena.\u201d . Tbe gift was completed by delivery of tbe property to tbe donee. Parker v. Mott, 181 N. C., 435, 107 S. E., 500, and cases there cited.\nAnother witness for tbe intervener was ber father-in-law, J. C. Young, who was surety on tbe first replevin bond given by McCullers Young. This bond, however, bad been superseded by tbe later replevin bond given by tbe intervener. His testimony was to tbe effect that just prior to tbe marriage of bis son to tbe intervener, be beard tbe deceased say \u201ctbe cow belonged to Lena.\u201d Tbe ruling that tbe interest of tbe witness did not disqualify him to speak in the case would seem to be correct. Cf. Mason v. McCormick, 75 N. C., 263. In no event could McCullers Young and tbe surety on bis bond be held liable for the return of tbe property or for costs. He bad no pecuniary interest in tbe matter. Tbe evidence is competent as a declaration against interest. Smith v. Moore, 142 N. C., 277, 55 S. E., 275. Tbe exception is not sustained.\nTbe plaintiff offered to show by Charlie Spivey that he beard tbe deceased say, only a few days before ber death, \u201cthat she loaned tbe cow to Lena so she could have milk and butter for ber two children.\u201d On objection this evidence was excluded. Tbe plaintiff excepts and has pressed tbe exception with vigor. Tbe ruling is supported by a number of decisions. In tbe first place, it is hearsay, Chandler v. Marshall, 189 N. C., 301, 126 S. E., 742; and, secondly, it is self-serving. Barker v. Ins. Co., 163 N. C., 175, 79 S. E., 424. There was no error in its exclusion.\nWhile on tbe witness stand, the administrator was asked whether any claims bad been filed against tbe estate. An objection to tbe question was interposed and sustained. Tbe record does not show what the answer would have been. In re Smith's Will, 163 N. C., 464, 79 S. E., 977. Nor is its relevancy or materiality apparent. Tbe assignment cannot be sustained.\nPerhaps it should be mentioned, as worthy of preservation, that tbe intervener alleges she is tbe owner \u201cin fee simple\u201d of tbe cow and calf in question. Tbe quality of ber title, however, was not determined on tbe bearing as tbe jury only found tbe plaintiff was not the owner.\nA careful perusal of the entire record leaves us with the impression that no reversible error has been made to appear. Hence, the verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "G. M. Beam for plaintiff, appellant.", "Yarborough & Yarborough for defendants, appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "SOL WILLIAMS, Admr., v. McCULLERS YOUNG et al.\n(Filed 21 May, 1947.)\n1. Gifts \u00a7 1\u2014\nEvidence that the owner gave \u2022 intervener the property in dispute and that the gift was completed by delivery of the property to the donee held sufficient to support intervener\u2019s claim to the property by gift inter vivos.\n2. Evidence \u00a7 32\u2014\nWhere, in claim and delivery by an administrator, the replevin bond of defendant is superseded by a replevin bond given by intervener, the surety on the original bond has no pecuniary interest in the outcome of the action and is competent to testify for intervener as to a declaration made by decedent.\n3. Evidence \u00a7 43b\u2014\nIn an action in claim and delivery by an administrator, testimony by a disinterested witness as to a declaration made by decedent that the property in suit belonged to intervener, is competent as a declaration against interest.\n4. Evidence \u00a7 43a\u2014\nIn an action in claim and delivery by an administrator, testimony as to declaration made by deceased to the effect that she had \u201cloaned\u201d rather than \u201cgiven\u201d the property to intervener claiming by gift inter vivos, is held incompetent both on the ground that it is hearsay and on the ground that the declaration is self-serving.\n5. Appeal and Error \u00a7 6c (4) \u2014\nWhere the record fails to show what the witness\u2019 answer would have been if permitted to testify and the relevancy or materiality of the answer is not made apparent, assignment of error to the exclusion of the testimony cannot be sustained.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Carr, J., at January Civil Term, 1947, of FRANKLIN.\nCivil action in claim and delivery instituted by administrator against McCullers Young to recover cow and calf as property of the estate.\nLena Kearney Young, wife of the defendant, with leave of court, intervened, executed replevin bond, and alleged that she was the owner \u201cin fee simple\u201d of the property seized.\nFrom an adverse verdict and judgment, the plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.\nG. M. Beam for plaintiff, appellant.\nYarborough & Yarborough for defendants, appellees." }, "file_name": "0472-01", "first_page_order": 520, "last_page_order": 522 }