{ "id": 8576410, "name": "COY F. NEAL v. ASSOCIATES DISCOUNT CORPORATION, A Corporation", "name_abbreviation": "Neal v. Associates Discount Corp.", "decision_date": "1963-12-19", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "771", "last_page": "772", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "260 N.C. 771" } ], "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": "158 S.E. 703", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 N.C. 37", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621956 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/201/0037-01" ] }, { "cite": "147 S.E. 301", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "196 N.C. 797", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629746 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/196/0797-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 255, "char_count": 3733, "ocr_confidence": 0.436, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.2067244074847607 }, "sha256": "90b9cfd8658b40b368204a62309f36730f874a678a17f5ce9bbac8f43f9c3219", "simhash": "1:187af336b5de507d", "word_count": 612 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:49:29.885963+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "COY F. NEAL v. ASSOCIATES DISCOUNT CORPORATION, A Corporation." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Per Curiam.\nAlthough the record shows \u201cplaintiff\u201d excepted to and assigned as error the finding of fact that he \u201cis now deceased,\u201d on the ground no evidence was offered to support such finding, the \u201cPlaintiff Appellant\u2019s Brief\u201d does not bring forward this exceptive assignment of error. There appears in the record astipulation dated July 10, 1963, signed by the \u201cAttorneys for Plaintiff\u201d and by the \u201cAttorneys for Defendant,\u201d w>hioh includes the following: \u201cIt is further stipulated that Coy F. Neal died prior to the hearing and entering of the Judgment appealed from in this cause.\u201d\nAssuming Coy F. Neal\u2019s cause or right of action survived his death, it could be continued and prosecuted only by hi-s personal representative. The procedure to determine whether his cause or right of action was to be -continued and prosecuted by \u00a1his personal representative or dismissed is prescribed by G.S. 1-74 and G.S. 1-75. The question whether the alleged cause or right of action survived Coy F. Neal\u2019s death would necessarily be presented. See McIntosh North Carolina Practice 'and Procedure, Second Edition (Wilson), \u00a7 731 and \u00a7 732. Nothing in idle record indicates compliance in any respect with the cited statutory .provisions.\nNothing in the record indicates the personal representative, if any, of Coy F. Neal has been substituted as a party herein. Indeed, the record contains no reference to ia personal representative of Coy F. Neal.\nThere appears in the file of the Clerk of this Court ran \u201cUndertaking on Appeal for Coats,\u201d dated and filed September 9, 1963, signed \u201cBlake N. Neal, Administrator of the Estate of Coy F. Neal\u201d and \u201cThurman Neal.\u201d Yet, even in .this document, Coy P. Neal is designated as- appellant.\n\u201cPlaintiff Appellant\u2019s Brief\u201d states: \u201cAfter the action was filed, the plaintiff died. The administratrix of Coy F. Neal then filed motion asking that she 'be made a party plaintiff 'and allowed to adopt the complaint filed herein.\u201d (Our italics). Nothing to this effect appears in the certified record or in appellee\u2019s brief.\nTo what extent, if any, the administrator or administratrix of the estate of Coy F. Neal, if there is such personal representative, is bound by the judgment entered by the court below, is not presented. Suffice to say, there can be no appeal from said judgment by Coy F. Neal, the deceased plaintiff. The purported -appeal in his name \u201cis -a nullity as well as an anomaly.\u201d S. v. Beasley, 196 N.C. 797, 147 S.E. 301; Hunt v. State, 201 N.C. 37, 158 S.E. 703.\nAppeal dismissed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Per Curiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "White & Grumpier, Harrell Poiuell, Jr., and Leslie G. Frye for plaintiff appellant.", "McLennan & Surratt for defendant appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "COY F. NEAL v. ASSOCIATES DISCOUNT CORPORATION, A Corporation.\n(Filed 19 December 1963.)\nAppeal and Error g 4\u2014\nWhere it appears of .record that .after .the institution of the action, but before the bearing, the plaintiff died, a purported appeal in the name of tbe deceased plaintiff is a nullity as well as an anomaly, and the appeal roust be dismissed, there being nothing to indicate that the personal representative was substituted as a party.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Johnston, J., April 8, 1963, Session of FORSYTH.\nPlaintiff instituted this action to recover compensatory and punitive damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by the tortious conduct of defendant.\nPleadings, .consisting of complaint, answer and reply, were filed. Thereafter, there was a hearing on defendant\u2019s oral motion to dismiss. The court found \u201cas a fact tlhat the said plaintiff, Coy F. Neal, is now-deceased,\u201d and dismissed the action on the ground the cause or right of action alleged in the complaint did not .survive. G.S. 28-175.\nThe record shows that \u201cplaintiff\u201d excepted and appealed.\nWhite & Grumpier, Harrell Poiuell, Jr., and Leslie G. Frye for plaintiff appellant.\nMcLennan & Surratt for defendant appellee." }, "file_name": "0771-01", "first_page_order": 811, "last_page_order": 812 }