{
  "id": 8685033,
  "name": "ELI PENNY v. E. R. BRINK and L. G. ESTES",
  "name_abbreviation": "Penny v. Brink",
  "decision_date": "1876-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "68",
  "last_page": "69",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "75 N.C. 68"
    }
  ],
  "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": 251,
    "char_count": 3576,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.452,
    "sha256": "e2ccab03c72ac55cb5dfa6414135bad7829c6bf56d7023a83a9fde77f01e6e56",
    "simhash": "1:13be9b538acc2631",
    "word_count": 636
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:17:21.962704+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ELI PENNY v. E. R. BRINK and L. G. ESTES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeaesoN, C. J.\nThe question lies in a nut-shell, and but little can be said on either side.\nA party to an action may be examined in his own behalf, C. C. P., sec. 343. In that case lie Is.net entitled to pay as a witness.\nA party may be compelled to attend Court and be examined in behalf of a eo-plaintiff or co-defendant, \u201c as to any matter in which he -is not jointly interested or liable,,\u201d &c. C. C. P.., sec. 340. In that case he is entitled to pay as a witness.\nWe are of opinion upon the facts stated that Brink was examined in his own behalf, and section 343 applies. According to the record, plaintiff brought his action to recover of the defendants, \u00c9. R. Brink and L. G. Estes, trading .as partners under the name of \u201c Brink & Estes,\u201d damages for an injury to certain property leased to them, by reason ef their negligence.\nSo .the liability, if any, was joint, and section 340 does not apply. The case sets out that Brink was examined in behalf of the defendants \u2014 in fact the Interest of the defendants was identical, and Brink could not swear for Estes without swearing for himself.\nThere is error. Judgment reversed. This opinion will be certified.\nPer Curiam. Judgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeaesoN, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "\u2022Clement, for .appellant.",
      "Me C\u00f3rlele and Bailey^- contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ELI PENNY v. E. R. BRINK and L. G. ESTES.\nA party may M compelled to attend cowt, and fen examined in behalf of a eo-plaintiff, or a\u00bb coMiefendant, \u201c'as to any matter in.-which, he is not jointly interested or liable,\u201d &c.; and in such case he is entitled to pay as a witness.\nCivil Action -Trespass on the case, brought before the enactment of the- Code of Civil Procedure, and tried before his Honor, Judge--, at-Term, 187-, of the Superior Court of Rowan County.\nThe following are the facts relating to the points- raised and decided in this Court, so far as- they could, be gleaned; from the imperfect transcript sent to this Court as the record;\nThe plaintiff, among other things, declared that in 1865, he rented to the defendants his store-house in the town of Lexington, for the purpose of carrying on the business of merchandizing under the name and style of \u201cBrink & Estes.\u201d That during, the occupation of said store- by the defendants, and whilst the same was under their control in accordance with their contract of leasing, they, the defendants, failed\u2019 to- use proper care, and for the want of proper care on their parts, the- said store-house- was burned, to the great damage of the said plaintiff.\nThe defendants joined in the plea of the \u201c General Issue-.\u201d E. R. Brink, one of said defendants, was subpoenaed as a witness, at first for both, to-wit: Brink & Estes; and afterwards, to.-wit: from the 16th of October, 1873, he was summoned as a witness for his co-defendant, L. Gr. Estes. On the trial, he was examined and did testify, as the case states, \u201c on behalf of the defendants.\u201d There was a verdict for the defendants.\nOn the return of the execution issued against the plaintiff for costs, his counsel moved for a rule to re-tax the bill of costs sent out by the Clerk of the Court; and on the hearing it was alleged for the plaintiff that the said E. R. Brink, one of the defendants, was allowed the sum of one one hundred and sixty-nine dollars and eighty cents, ($169.80,) for his fees and mileage, he being paid as a witness; whereas, he was in attendance both as a party and witness, and examined in behalf of the defendants.\n\u25a0 The Court refused the plaintiff\u2019s motion, holding that Brink was (entitled to pay as a witness, and adjudged accordingly.\nFrom this judgment the plaintiff appealed.\n\u2022Clement, for .appellant.\nMe C\u00f3rlele and Bailey^- contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0068-01",
  "first_page_order": 76,
  "last_page_order": 77
}