{
  "id": 8693387,
  "name": "THOMAS M. LEE v. JOHN R. BEAMAN, Adm'r of JONAS PETERSON, deceaed",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lee v. Beaman",
  "decision_date": "1875-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "410",
  "last_page": "412",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "73 N.C. 410"
    }
  ],
  "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": 279,
    "char_count": 5090,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.443,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.2085472642727205e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2680988351058305
    },
    "sha256": "c997938edd133aa2cdd562dcc12bfa341fb6772734b2133c8f3f4998246bbd67",
    "simhash": "1:d9d7dc4717b067c7",
    "word_count": 888
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:55:27.517682+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THOMAS M. LEE v. JOHN R. BEAMAN, Adm\u2019r of JONAS PETERSON, deceaed."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\nWe are confined to the specific canses assigned for demurer. If they are sufficient, then the case would be1 sent back to the end that the defendant may amend his answer, or the plaintiff' have judgment, as the case may be. If insufficient, then the answer stands as sufficient, and the defendant should have judgment unless the complaint be amended on leave.\nI. The first cause assigned for demurrer, \u201c'that the answer does not state what disposition, if any, has been made of the-real estate of the intestate,\u201d is insufficient; because it is not alleged in the complaint, nor does it appear that there was any real estate.\nII. The second cause, \u201c that the answer does not state that the entire personal property of the intestate has been exhausted.\u201d is insufficient; because the answer does state \u201c that .the Confederate currenc}\u2019\u2019 thus received was the only assets of the estate remaining in the hands of the defendant,\u201d and that' the same is \u201c worthless.\u201d\nIII. The third cause, that the answer does not state \u201c by whom, nor to whom, nor in what amount refunding bonds were1, executed,\u201d is insufficient; because the answer does state that refunding bonds were taken from the next of kin according to< law with solvent sureties, and filed in the Clerk\u2019s office, and1 that the bonds had become insolvent by the results of the war-\nIY. The fourth cause, that the answer does not state at what time the defendant received Confederate money for the-property of the intestate which he had sold, is insufficient ^ because the answer does state that the sales were in January and April, 1863, on six months time, and that the money was-duly paid, and that with it, he paid off all the debts against\u2019 the estate, except the plaintiff\u2019s; and that he offered to pay fliat to the Clerk who refused to receive it under instructions.. So that the time is stated with sufficient accuracy. But if the time were not stated at all it would make no difference; because the answer, which is admitted by the demurrer, states that at the time it was received it was the only currency; and it was generally received in payment of well secured anii-war debts, and that he had reason to believe, and did believe, that he could pay all the debts of the estate with it. And that the defendant \u201c has acted with proper care and his best skill in the management \"'of the estate, and in all things acted in good faith.\u201d\nThere being no force in the causes specified for demurer; and it being admitted thereby that the defendant has acted with \u201c proper care \u201d and \u201c in good faith,\u201d and \u201c has nothing in hand,\u201d it follows that there must be judgment overruling the demurer, and for the defendants upon the merits; unless the complaint be amended upon leave.\nTo the end that the parties may proceed as they may be advised, and as they may have leave, the case is remanded.\nThere is error.\nThis will be certified. There will be judgment here for the \u25a0defendant for costs.\nPee CuRiiM.\nJudgment sustaining the demurer, reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J. Pee CuRiiM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. S. <& D. J. Devane and Smith & Strong, for appellant-",
      "Merrimon, Fuller & Ashe and Kerr & Kerr, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THOMAS M. LEE v. JOHN R. BEAMAN, Adm\u2019r of JONAS PETERSON, deceaed.\nIn an action against an administrator to recover upon a former judgment against his intestate: Ir was held,\n(1.) That a demurrer to the answer of the defendant, on the ground that it did not state what disposition, if any, had been made of the real estate of the intestate, is insufficient, where it is not alleged in the complaint, and did not appear that there was any real estate.\n(2.) A demurrer to an answer \u201cfor that it does not state that the entire personal property of the intestate has been exhausted,\u201d must be overruled, where it is alleged in the answer that, \u201cthe Confederate money thus received, was the only assets remaining in the hands of the defendant, and that the same is worthless.\u201d\n(3. That a demurrer upon the ground, \u201cthat the answer does not state by whom, nor to whom, nor in what amount refunding bonds were executed,\u201d must be overruled when the answer states, \u201cthat refunding bonds were taken from the next of kin according to law, with solvent sureties, and filed in the Olerk\u2019s office, and that these bonds had become insolvent by the results of the war.\u201d\n(4.) That a demurrer, \u201c because the answer does not state at what time the defendant received Confederate money for the property of his intestate,\u201d must be overruled, when the answer does state the date and terms of the sale, and that the money was paid when due.\nThis was a civil action, to recover a former judgment, tried before his Honor, Judge Kerr, at the Spring Term, 1875, of the Superior Court of Sampson county, upon the plaintiff demurrer to the defendant\u2019s answer.\nThe Court after inspection of the pleadings, and after argu. ment, gave judgment sustaining the demurrer, and in favor of the plaintiff for the amount claimed in the complaint. From this judgment the defendant appealed.\nThe grounds of the plaintiff\u2019s demurer, with the necessary facts pertinent thereto are fully set out in the opinion of the Court.\nW. S. <& D. J. Devane and Smith & Strong, for appellant-\nMerrimon, Fuller & Ashe and Kerr & Kerr, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0410-01",
  "first_page_order": 418,
  "last_page_order": 420
}