{
  "id": 8683550,
  "name": "WILLIAM LEA, ADM'R OF JOHN HARRIS, vs. BRYANT GAUZE, ADM'R, &c.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lea v. Gauze",
  "decision_date": "1843-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "9",
  "last_page": "10",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "4 Ired. 9"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 N.C. 9"
    }
  ],
  "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": "2 Ired. Rep. 440",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired. Rep.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Hay. 66",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hayw.",
      "case_ids": [
        11960990,
        11960942
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/3/0066-02",
        "/nc/3/0066-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 214,
    "char_count": 2846,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.493,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.61237739423476e-08,
      "percentile": 0.52071063609453
    },
    "sha256": "2918e292694eb11ab431680cbd3924555f62776e54a72f7ed89b94d319908ab1",
    "simhash": "1:1bed6dc574a9365b",
    "word_count": 522
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:22:59.151638+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "WILLIAM LEA, ADM\u2019R OF JOHN HARRIS, vs. BRYANT GAUZE, ADM\u2019R, &c."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ruffin,. C\u2018. J.\nWithout having regard to the circumstance, that the letters of administration to Jones are general and not de bonis non, his motion must be denied as not having been made in due time. The act, Rev. St. c. 2, s. 6, allows a suit brought by an administrator to be revived by an administrator de bonis non, as it might be revived by an executor upon the death of his testator. Now, by the preceding sections of the act, taken from the acts of 1789 and 1799, according to their settled construction, the executor of a deceased plaintiff must apply to carry on the suit within two terms after the day of the\u2019 testator\u2019s death, except in the cases of contest's about a will or the administration \u2014 of which there is no suggestion here. Tay. Rep. 134. 2 Hay. 66, This is the third term since the death of the original plaintiff, and therefore the application is not in time to prevent the action from abating.\nIf the death of the plaintiff had occurred while the case was held under advisari here, we might enter the judgment mine pro tunc, as of a day previous to the death ; but in fact that event occurred before the case was constituted in this court, or, at least, before the first term, so that there is no day, of which a judgment could be entered in this court in the life of the party.\nPer Curiam, Motion disallowed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ruffin,. C\u2018. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John H. Bryan for the plaintiff.",
      "Strange for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WILLIAM LEA, ADM\u2019R OF JOHN HARRIS, vs. BRYANT GAUZE, ADM\u2019R, &c.\nThe application to \u00edevive a suit in the name of the Administrator of a deceased plaintiff, must be made within two terms after Ms death.\nAffidavits will be received to shew when the plaintiff died.\nIf the death of a plaintiff occurs after the commencement of the term of this court, at which the appeal in his case is regularly entered, although the judgment be not rendered at that term, the court may enter ajudgmentmmepro tuna, as of a day previous to his death; but they cannot do' s\u00f3, when he died previous to the commencement of such term.\nThis was an appeal to June Terra, 1842, of this court, which term began \u00f3n the 13th day of the month. The defendant was the appellant, and filed the transcript on the 29th of May. Although the opinion of the court was delivered at that term, (see 2 Ired. Rep. 440), the judgment was not entered, and it was afterwards ascertained, that the plaintiff Lea, the administrator of Harris, died on the 7th of June,-1842. The County Court of Brunswick, on' the 1st day of December, 18'42, granted administration of Harris\u2019 estate to Hartford Jones, and he at this term (June, 1843,) moved for leave to revive the suit in his name ; which was opposed by the defendant, who offered affidavits as to the period of Lea\u2019s death, which were not disputed on the other side.\nJohn H. Bryan for the plaintiff.\nStrange for the defendant.\nNote. \u2014 The opinion \u00f3n the motion in this case was delivered at June Term, 1843."
  },
  "file_name": "0009-01",
  "first_page_order": 9,
  "last_page_order": 10
}