{ "id": 8630982, "name": "E. M. LONG v. FRANK R. LOVE", "name_abbreviation": "Long v. Love", "decision_date": "1949-06-02", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "535", "last_page": "537", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "230 N.C. 535" } ], "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": "40 S.E. 2d 412", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 N.C. 732", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625043 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/226/0732-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 S.E. 2d 537", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "222 N.C. 704", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8632195 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/222/0704-01" ] }, { "cite": "21 S.E. 2d 873", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "222 N.C. 95", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628783 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/222/0095-01" ] }, { "cite": "176 S.E. 738", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "207 N.C. 237", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624752 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/207/0237-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 How. Pr. 48", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "How. Pr.", "case_ids": [ 2196770 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/how-pr/10/0048-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 S.E. 440", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "141 N.C. 694", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11253854 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/141/0694-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 306, "char_count": 4895, "ocr_confidence": 0.464, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.9657463940090033e-07, "percentile": 0.8499279301611793 }, "sha256": "4caf0d24637a7f060724501dcb4c45bf26d77c6f6cdbbbfdf0ccd55c3a0e2fc9", "simhash": "1:a82d9a1821a86273", "word_count": 848 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:28:13.210119+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "E. M. LONG v. FRANK R. LOVE." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WinboeNE, J.\nUpon motion of any party aggrieved, aptly made, tbe court may strike out irrelevant and redundant matter appearing in a complaint. G.S. 1-153, formerly G.S. 537. Defendant proceeds under tbis authority, and challenges tbe decision of tbe court below in denying bis motion. Tbis brings into focus tbe portions of tbe complaint to wbicb objection is made.\n\u25a0 In tbis connection it is provided by statute that tbe complaint must contain, among other things, \u201ca plain and concise statement of tbe facts constituting a cause of action, without unnecessary repetition.\u201d G.S. 1-122. Moreover, it is pertinent to note what is tbe function of a complaint. In Winders v. Hill, 141 N.C. 694, 54 S.E. 440, in opinion by Walicer, J., tbis Court has tbis to say: \u201cTbe function of a complaint is not tbe narration of tbe evidence, but a statement of tbe substantive and constituent facts upon which, plaintiff\u2019s claim to relief is foundec^' The bare statement of the ultimate facts is all that is required, and they \u00e1re always such as are directly put in issue. Probative facts are those much may be in controversy, but are not issuable. Facts from which the ultimate and decisive facts may be inferred are but evidence,'and therefore probative. Those from which a legal conclusion may be drawn and upon which the right of action depends are the issuable facts which are proper to be stated in a pleading. The distinction is well marked in the following passage: \u2018The ultimate facts are those which the evidence upon the trial will prove, and not the evidence which will be required to prove the existence of those facts.\u2019 Wooden v. Strew, 10 How. Pr. 48; 4 Enc. of Pl. & Pr., p. 612.\u201d See also Revis v. Asheville, 207 N.C. 237, 176 S.E. 738; Hawkins v. Moss, 222 N.C. 95, 21 S.E. 2d 873; Truelove v. R. R., 222 N.C. 704, 24 S.E. 2d 537; Brown v. Hall, 226 N.C. 732, 40 S.E. 2d 412.\nApplying the provisions of the statute, G.S. 1-173, and the principle above stated to the complaint in hand, and bearing in mind that plaintiff bases his cause of action upon an alleged willful, wanton and malicious assault and battery committed upon his person by defendant, and invokes the provisional remedy of arrest and bail, G.S. 1-410 (1), we are in accord with the ruling of the court brought into question on this appeal.\nA defendant may be arrested and held to bail in a civil action, in this State, for the recovery of damages on a cause of action not arising out of contract where the action is for willful, wanton or malicious injury to person. G.S. 1-410 (1).\nThus it appears that the portions of the complaint to which objection is made relate directly to the ultimate facts, and are within the pale of proper pleading in the statement of a cause of action for recovery of damages for an alleged willful, wanton and malicious injury to person,- \u2014 \u25a0 on which the aid of arrest and bail is invoked.\nAnd while the record discloses that the arrest and bail was predicated upon affidavits filed, it is appropriate for plaintiff to allege in his complaint facts upon which such remedy may be sustained. Hence the judgment below is\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "WinboeNE, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Cooper, Sanders & Holt for plaintiff, appellee.", "Thos. C. Carter and Long & Boss for defendant, appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "E. M. LONG v. FRANK R. LOVE.\n(Filed 2 June, 1949.)\n1. Pleadings \u00a7 3a\u2014\nThe function of the complaint is to state the ultimate and decisive facts which constitute the cause of action but not the evidence necessary to prove such issuable facts.\n2. Arrest and Bail \u00a7 9\u2014\nA defendant may be arrested and held to bail in a civil action in tort to recover for a willful, wanton or malicious injury to the person. G.S. 1-410 (1).\n3. Arrest and Bail \u00a7 10\u2014\nIn an action for assault and battery in which the provisional remedy of arrest and bail is invoked, it is appropriate for plaintiff to allege in the complaint the facts necessary to support the provisional remedy of arrest and bail, notwithstanding that such facts were also set out in the affidavit filed as a basis for the provisional remedy.\n4. Pleadings \u00a7 31\u2014\nIn an action for assault and battery in which the provisional remedy of arrest and bail is invoked, motion to strike allegations that the injury was willful, wanton or malicious, is properly denied, since plaintiff is ' entitled to allege facts necessary to support the provisional remedy. G.S. 1-153.\nAppeal by defendant from Pait\u00f3n, Special Judge, at November Civil Term, 1948, of AlakaNce.\nCivil action to recover damages for alleged personal injuries resulting from assault and battery in wbicb tbe provisional remedy of arrest and bail is invoked.\nDefendant in apt time filed motion to strike certain portions of tbe complaint as being \u201credundant, tautological and evidential,\u201d to bis prejudice. Tbe court, being of opinion that tbe motion should not be granted, denied it in tbe entirety.\nDefendant appeals to Supreme Court and assigns error.\nCooper, Sanders & Holt for plaintiff, appellee.\nThos. C. Carter and Long & Boss for defendant, appellant." }, "file_name": "0535-01", "first_page_order": 591, "last_page_order": 593 }