{
  "id": 2088576,
  "name": "SHELLY AND FIELDS v. HIATT",
  "name_abbreviation": "SHELLY v. Hiatt",
  "decision_date": "1860-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "509",
  "last_page": "510",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "7 Jones 509"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "52 N.C. 509"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 213,
    "char_count": 3250,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.412,
    "sha256": "7b153e9d9d5575b8b87eabd985b17412d1b9cb5047291a81a9c2027fb5c41062",
    "simhash": "1:a996899ae4557cdc",
    "word_count": 554
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:16:19.129964+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SHELLY AND FIELDS v. HIATT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Manly, J.\nIt will be seen from the written agreement on file, that the case is made to turn upon the allowance or dis-allowance of the first exception on the paiT of the plaintiff to the account taken of defendant\u2019s assets. If the exception be allowed, the plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment for their debt; if it be not allowed, they submit to a nonsuit. The exception, we think, was properly sustained in the Superior Court. The' three hundred and fifty-four dollars and sixty-four cents, which the administrator claimed to retain, was due him by reason of certain expenditures in completing' a mill after intestate\u2019s death, in which the administrator and his intestate were concerned as partners. The partnership being dissolved by the death of one partner, no further partnership liabilities could be incurred. The debt, therefore, did not stand upon the footing of a partnership debt, but was at best a demand for money paid to the use of his intestate\u2019s estate, which a court of equity might possibly assist him in the recovery of, if assets had been left subject to the payment of such a claim.\nTo sanction this credit in the administrator\u2019s account, would be to allow him to retain his own demand, upon an open account, in preference to the bond-debt of the plaintiffs- \u2014 which is against law. The judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed.\nPer Curiam,\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Manly, J. Per Curiam,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McLean, for the plaintiff.",
      "Morehead, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SHELLY AND FIELDS v. HIATT.\nWhere an intestate and his administrator had .been partners in building a\" mill, it was Held that the administrator had no right to retain of the assets-for work done on the mill after the death of his intestate.\nAction of debt, tried before Shepherd, J., at a Special Term, (January, I860,) of Guilford Superior Court.\nThe action was brought against the defendant as the administrator of one Othnial Hiatt. The defense relied on, was the plea of fulhj admimstered and no assets. - A reference was made to Mr. Bwaim, a commissioner, to state an account of the assets, and the only question in the case arises on an exception to his report. It appeared that the defendant\u2019s intestate and the defendant were engaged in building a mill, on Deep Eiver, in copartnership ; that they both being mechanics, worked at the building, and had each done several hundred dollars worth of work at the time of the intestate\u2019s death; that after that event, the defendant continued to work at the mill, and then on a petition to the County Court, the mill was' sold by order of Court, and the intestate\u2019s estate received the benefit of half the proceeds ; the defendant, as copartner, receiving the benefit of the other half. In the commissioner\u2019s report, the defendant charges the estate of his intestate with \u201c the value of the improvements made by him on the said grain-mill after the intestate\u2019s death, and before the sale of the land, per decree, $35\u00e9,64,\u201d which was allowed by the commissioner and excepted to by the plaintiff. It was agreed that if the said exception was sustained, the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment for his debt, and that if it was not sustained, the defendant was entitled to the judgment. The Court below sustained the exception, and the defendant appealed.\nMcLean, for the plaintiff.\nMorehead, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0509-01",
  "first_page_order": 517,
  "last_page_order": 518
}