Morris v. Bogue Development Corp.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Morris v. Bogue Development Corp.

139 S.E. 433, 194 N.C. 279, 1927 N.C. LEXIS 71

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 28, 1927

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 139 S.E. 433 (Morris v. Bogue Development Corp.) 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

Morris v. Bogue Development Corp., 139 S.E. 433, 194 N.C. 279, 1927 N.C. LEXIS 71 (N.C. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

ClabKsoN, J.

Tbis is a civil action brought by plaintiff against defendant to recover $1,000. Tbe amended complaint alleges “being tbe brokerage due tbe plaintiff for bis services, time and skill.”

For tbe purpose of impeacbment, tbe defendant offered in evidence tbe original, or first, complaint filed in tbe action. Tbis was objected to by plaintiff, and sustained by tbe court below. In tbis we tbink there was error.

In Norcum v. Savage, 140 N. C., 472, it was decided: Where defendant bad been permitted to file an amended answer, tbe original answer containing admissions was admissible. Adams v. Utley, 87 N. C., 356; Guy v. Manuel, 89 N. C., 83; Cummings v. Hoffman, 113 N. C., 267; Gossler v. Wood, 120 N. C., 69; Willis v. Tel. Co., 150 N. C., 318; White v. Hines, 182 N. C., 275; Weston v. Typewriter Co., 183 N. C., p. 1.

In Guy v. Manuel, 89 N. C., at p. 84, quoting from Adams v. Utley, supra, it is said: “It was held that tbe evidence was competent, and that Tbe admissions of a party are always evidence against him, and tbe fact that they are contained in tbe pleadings filed in tbe cause does not affect its competency.” But tbe defendant’s 'counsel insist that that case is distinguishable from tbis, because there tbe answers were verified by tbe defendant, and in tbis, they are simply signed by counsel without verification. It is a distinction without a practical difference. For tbe admissions of attorneys in tbe conduct of an action are always admissible in evidence against their clients, especially when tbe admissions are of record.”

In Ledford v. Power Co., ante, at p. 102, it is said: “The pleading was competent, although in another case — a declaration of tbe party. 22 C. J., sec. 374(3); Bloxham v. Timber Corp., 172 N. C., 37; Alsworth v. Richmond Cedar Works, 172 N. C., p. 17; Pope v. Allis, 115 U. S., p. 353.”

For tbe reasons given, there must be a

New trial.

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

ClabKsoN, J.

Tbis is a civil action brought by plaintiff against defendant to recover $1,000. Tbe amended complaint alleges “being tbe brokerage due tbe plaintiff for bis services, time and skill.”

For tbe purpose of impeacbment, tbe defendant offered in evidence tbe original, or first, complaint filed in tbe action. Tbis was objected to by plaintiff, and sustained by tbe court below. In tbis we tbink there was error.

In Norcum v. Savage, 140 N. C., 472, it was decided: Where defendant bad been permitted to file an amended answer, tbe original answer containing admissions was admissible. Adams v. Utley, 87 N. C., 356; Guy v. Manuel, 89 N. C., 83; Cummings v. Hoffman, 113 N. C., 267; Gossler v. Wood, 120 N. C., 69; Willis v. Tel. Co., 150 N. C., 318; White v. Hines, 182 N. C., 275; Weston v. Typewriter Co., 183 N. C., p. 1.

In Guy v. Manuel, 89 N. C., at p. 84, quoting from Adams v. Utley, supra, it is said: “It was held that tbe evidence was competent, and that Tbe admissions of a party are always evidence against him, and tbe fact that they are contained in tbe pleadings filed in tbe cause does not affect its competency.” But tbe defendant’s 'counsel insist that that case is distinguishable from tbis, because there tbe answers were verified by tbe defendant, and in tbis, they are simply signed by counsel without verification. It is a distinction without a practical difference. For tbe admissions of attorneys in tbe conduct of an action are always admissible in evidence against their clients, especially when tbe admissions are of record.”

In Ledford v. Power Co., ante, at p. 102, it is said: “The pleading was competent, although in another case — a declaration of tbe party. 22 C. J., sec. 374(3); Bloxham v. Timber Corp., 172 N. C., 37; Alsworth v. Richmond Cedar Works, 172 N. C., p. 17; Pope v. Allis, 115 U. S., p. 353.”

For tbe reasons given, there must be a

New trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 S.E. 433, 194 N.C. 279, 1927 N.C. LEXIS 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-bogue-development-corp-nc-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack