{
  "id": 8620427,
  "name": "LELIA BRIGGS v. LACY DICKEY, Executor of the Estate of L. F. TROXLER, Deceased",
  "name_abbreviation": "Briggs v. Dickey",
  "decision_date": "1959-02-25",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "640",
  "last_page": "641",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "249 N.C. 640"
    }
  ],
  "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": "4 S.E. 2d 439",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "216 N.C. 235",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8596938
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/216/0235-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 S.E. 645",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "214 N.C. 196",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629446
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/214/0196-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 S.E. 2d 410",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 N.C. 552",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8613540
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/238/0552-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 S.E. 2d 660",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 N.C. 249",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8596985
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/240/0249-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 S.E. 2d 690",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 N.C. 548",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626066
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/243/0548-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 322,
    "char_count": 4329,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.47,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2072060957994076
    },
    "sha256": "66e594c9dcb61ddaf3161144bd8bda57cc1727d772fab09968efe60d1600f84c",
    "simhash": "1:07222ecb05160fd7",
    "word_count": 725
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.863799+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LELIA BRIGGS v. LACY DICKEY, Executor of the Estate of L. F. TROXLER, Deceased."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Higgins, J.\nThe plaintiff sued on quantum meruit for the value of services rendered by her to the defendant\u2019s testator and his wife beginning March 4, 1949, and ending September 30, 1957. She alleged she rendered the services in consideration of a promise on the part of the defendant\u2019s testator that he would devise to her a certain described farm containing 75 acres in Guilford County; that he accepted the services 'but failed to make the devise as promised; that her services were reasonably worth $10,200.00, for which she asked judgment.\nAfter a denial of the material allegations of the complaint, the defendant, as a part of his further defense, alleged in brief .summary: The testator executed his will' in which he devised approximately half the farm to the plaintiff; that the devise was in consideration of and in payment for her services; that be fully advised her of the terms of his will more than three years prior to his death; that she entered into possession of the land so devised and improved the same and used it as her own during the lifetime of the testator, \u201cand agreed by her acts and conduct to receive said devise in satisfaction for any (services . . . rendered\u201d; that she is estopped to deny payment, having elected to accept the devise; that if she is entitled to recover anything for services, the value of the property devised to her should be treated as pro tanto payment on any amount found to be due. The superior court, by order, struck from the defendant\u2019s further defense the allegations above summarized. The writ of certiorari brought the order here for review.\nThe rules of law applicable to motions to strike pleadings are set forth and fully discussed in many decisions of this Court. Hayes v. Wilmington, 243 N.C. 548, 91 S.E. 2d 690; Daniel v. Gardner, 240 N.C. 249, 81 S.E. 2d 660; Dixie Lines v. Grannick, 238 N.C. 552, 78 S.E. 2d 410; Trust Co. v. Dunlop, 214 N.C. 196, 198 S.E. 645. Pleadings may be stricken if they are unduly repetitious, redundant, or prejudicial.\nThe stricken portions of the defendant\u2019s pleading involve matters which may constitute a complete or a partial defense to the plaintiff\u2019s claim. We cannot say at this .stage of the proceeding that they are irrelevant, redundant, or that their retention would be unjustly prejudicial to 'the plaintiff\u2019s cause. The language of this Court in the case of Hildebrand v. Telephone Co., 216 N.C. 235, 4 S.E. 2d 439, seems to be appropriate here: \u201cHowever, without intimating an opinion upon the sufficiency as a defense of the matters set up in the paragraphs of the further answer which were ordered stricken out, or deciding their legal effect, we think the allegations should be permitted to remain in the defendant\u2019s pleading; and that the court should not out off at the outset an alleged defense which may or may not become material at the \u00a1trial. The matter can be more properly presented for judicial determination when the evidence is offered at the hearing.\u201d\nThe motion to strike should have \u2019been denied. The order allowing it is\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Higgins, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bethea and Robinson, By: Norwood B. Robinson for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "John D. Xanthos, Rufus W. Reynolds for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LELIA BRIGGS v. LACY DICKEY, Executor of the Estate of L. F. TROXLER, Deceased.\n(Filed 25 February, 1959.)\nExecutors and Administrators \u00a7 24a: Pleadings \u00a7 31\u2014 Allegations presenting matter which may become material on the trial held erroneously stricken.\nIn an action to recover the reasonable value of .personal services rendered decedent in reliance on decedent\u2019s verbal contract to devise certain lands to plaintiff, allegations in the answer that decedent did in fact devise a part of the lands to plaintiff, that plaintiff knew of .the provisions of the will, and by her acts and conduct accepted the provision in full satisfaction, or, at least, that the value of the property actually devised should be treated as pro tanto payment for any amount found due for the services, hel\u00f3, erroneously stricken on motion, since it cannot be determined .prior to the introduction of evidence that they are irrelevant, redundant, or that their retention would unjustly prejudice plaintiff\u2019s cause.\nCbrtioRARI to review an order of Johnston, J., entered in the above-entitled eause at the June 2, 1958 Civil Term, Guilford Superior Court.\nBethea and Robinson, By: Norwood B. Robinson for plaintiff, appellee.\nJohn D. Xanthos, Rufus W. Reynolds for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0640-01",
  "first_page_order": 682,
  "last_page_order": 683
}