{
  "id": 8628267,
  "name": "MARY CHARLES McCARTNEY v. APPALACHIAN HALL, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "McCartney v. Appalachian Hall, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1949-03-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "60",
  "last_page": "61",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "230 N.C. 60"
    }
  ],
  "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": "36 S.E. 2d 276",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 N.C. 700",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8617271
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/225/0700-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 S.E. 2d 884",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 N.C. 269",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8599907
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/224/0269-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 187,
    "char_count": 2249,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.499,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.7817273071113374e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30090094055676603
    },
    "sha256": "cc45da99bc8dd9d1a217caea07c5036f4392ea1d6bd5531fe254605061ad0e66",
    "simhash": "1:3a63f45b4e732d3b",
    "word_count": 379
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:28:13.210119+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARY CHARLES McCARTNEY v. APPALACHIAN HALL, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "DeviN, J.\nIn the first cause of action set out in plaintiff\u2019s complaint she undertook to allege abuse of process as the basis of a claim for damages. Defendant\u2019s demurrer thereto was sustained and plaintiff appealed. Plaintiff\u2019s second cause of action as set out - in her complaint is not involved in the appeal.\nThe gravamen of the complaint was that plaintiff had been received as an insane person in defendant\u2019s institution on the authority of a letter from one who claimed to have been appointed ber guardian in Blount County, Tennessee, and tbat she was detained thereunder by tbe defendant for a longer period tban 20 days (G.S. 35-58). It is alleged tbat tbe entire proceeding \u201cwas totally null and void,\u201d and later was so determined by tbe courts of Tennessee.\nIt was said in Ellis v. Wellons, 224 N.C. 269, 29 S.E. 2d 884, quoting witb approval from 1 A.J. 176, tbat \u201cabuse of legal process consists in tbe malicious misuse or misapplication of tbat process to accomplisb some purpose not warranted or commanded by tbe writ. In brief, it is tbe malicious perversion of a regularly issued process whereby a result not lawfully or properly attainable under it is secured.\u201d And in Melton v. Hickman, 225 N.C. 700, 36 S.E. 2d 276, it was again declared tbat abuse of' process was \u201ctbe malicious perversion of a legally issued process.\u201d Hence, it follows tbat whatever remedies tbe plaintiff may be entitled to pursue for redress of ber alleged wrongs, she may not be permitted to maintain, as against a demurrer, a cause of action for abuse of process upon allegation tbat tbe process under which she was made to suffer was totally null and void.\nTbe judgment sustaining tbe demurrer to plaintiff\u2019s first cause of action is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "DeviN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Don G. Young for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Smothers & Meekins for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARY CHARLES McCARTNEY v. APPALACHIAN HALL, INC.\n(Filed 2 March, 1949.)\nProcess \u00a7 15\u2014\nWhere, in an action for abuse of process, the complaint alleges that the process was null and void, demurrer is properly sustained, since a cause of action for abuse of process lies only for the malicious misuse or misapplication of valid process.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Shuford, Special Judge, November Term, 1948, of BuNCOMbe.\nAffirmed.\nDon G. Young for plaintiff, appellant.\nSmothers & Meekins for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0060-01",
  "first_page_order": 116,
  "last_page_order": 117
}
