Helsabeck v. . Doub

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Helsabeck v. . Doub

83 S.E. 241, 167 N.C. 205, 1914 N.C. LEXIS 84

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 5, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by26 cases

This text of 83 S.E. 241 (Helsabeck v. . Doub) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Helsabeck v. . Doub, 83 S.E. 241, 167 N.C. 205, 1914 N.C. LEXIS 84 (N.C. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

AlleN, J.

The evidence of the wife as to the contract between the plaintiff and the intestate of the defendant was objected to under section 1631 of the Eevisal, upon the ground that, while not a party to the action, she was interested in the result.

The language of the statute is, “interested in the event,” and this is held in Jones v. Emory, 115 N. C., 163, and in Sutton v. Walters, 118 N. C., 495, to mean a “direct, legal, or pecuniary interest.” In this sense the wife had no interest, as upon a recovery by the plaintiff no right growing out of the married relationship would attach to the money recovered.

*206 In tbe case of Bradshaw v. Brooks, 71 N. C., 322, tbe plaintiff brought an .action to recover tbe amount of a certain bond which tbe defendant bad collected and bad not paid to tbe testator, bis fatber-in-law, and tbe defendant’s wife, tbe daughter of tbe testator, was held to be a competent witness to prove that her husband, tbe defendant, offered to pay her father tbe money, but was told by him to keep it, as be intended it as an advancement to himself and tbe witness; and this was approved in Paul v. Holleman, 136 N. C., 34.

Tbe case of Linebarger v. Linebarger, 143 N. C., 231, is not in point, because the property in controversy was land, and tbe wife’s inchoate right to dower attached immediately upon tbe recovery by her husband.

We are, therefore, of opinion that tbe wife was a competent witness, and that her evidence was properly received.

Tbe exception to tbe refusal to charge tbe jury that there could be no recovery for services rendered three years prior to tbe commencement of tbe action is fully met by tbe cases of Miller v. Lash, 85 N. C., 54, and Freeman v. Brown, 151 N. C., 115, bolding that where services are rendered upon an agreement that compensation is to be made at death, that tbe amount does not become due until death, and that tbe statute of limitations does not begin until that time.

We find

No error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

AlleN, J.

The evidence of the wife as to the contract between the plaintiff and the intestate of the defendant was objected to under section 1631 of the Eevisal, upon the ground that, while not a party to the action, she was interested in the result.

The language of the statute is, “interested in the event,” and this is held in Jones v. Emory, 115 N. C., 163, and in Sutton v. Walters, 118 N. C., 495, to mean a “direct, legal, or pecuniary interest.” In this sense the wife had no interest, as upon a recovery by the plaintiff no right growing out of the married relationship would attach to the money recovered.

*206 In tbe case of Bradshaw v. Brooks, 71 N. C., 322, tbe plaintiff brought an .action to recover tbe amount of a certain bond which tbe defendant bad collected and bad not paid to tbe testator, bis fatber-in-law, and tbe defendant’s wife, tbe daughter of tbe testator, was held to be a competent witness to prove that her husband, tbe defendant, offered to pay her father tbe money, but was told by him to keep it, as be intended it as an advancement to himself and tbe witness; and this was approved in Paul v. Holleman, 136 N. C., 34.

Tbe case of Linebarger v. Linebarger, 143 N. C., 231, is not in point, because the property in controversy was land, and tbe wife’s inchoate right to dower attached immediately upon tbe recovery by her husband.

We are, therefore, of opinion that tbe wife was a competent witness, and that her evidence was properly received.

Tbe exception to tbe refusal to charge tbe jury that there could be no recovery for services rendered three years prior to tbe commencement of tbe action is fully met by tbe cases of Miller v. Lash, 85 N. C., 54, and Freeman v. Brown, 151 N. C., 115, bolding that where services are rendered upon an agreement that compensation is to be made at death, that tbe amount does not become due until death, and that tbe statute of limitations does not begin until that time.

We find

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 S.E. 241, 167 N.C. 205, 1914 N.C. LEXIS 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helsabeck-v-doub-nc-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack