Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

12 N.C. 315

Pearson v. . Nesbit

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 5, 1827

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1827-12-05

From Rowan. Richmond Pearson appointed the present Plaintiff, and Jesse A Pearjson, executor and executrix of his will. At the time of his death, h* was indebted to Alexander Nes-hil & Company, which consisted of the present Defend-am, and the same Jesse A. Pearson, whom he had appointed one of his executors.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““A suit at iaw is a contest betw.eén two parties in the court of justice; the one seeking and the other withholding the thing in contest. The same in dividual cannot be at tbe same time both tbe person seeking and tbe person withholding, for it involves an absurdity that a person should seek from himself or withhold from himself. * * * Where the same person is both plaintiff and defendant in different rights, as for himself on the one side and as executor on the other, this absurdity is involved.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Monmouth Inv. Co. v. Means

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1827-12-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 1980

1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

2018271830184018501860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Henderson Judge.

¶1 A suit at law, is a contest between two parties in a Court of Justise ; the one seeking, and ibeothei withholding the tiling in contest. The, same individual cannot be, at the same time, botli the person seeking and tbe person withholding. For it involves an absurdity, that a person should seek/rom him *317 self, or withhold from himself. Between a corporation and the individuals composing it, this identity does not exist, and the absurdity >bove stated is avoided ; but where, the same person is both Plaintiff and. Defendant, in different rights, as for himself on the one side, and as executor on the other, this absurdity is involved. When adversary rights, as creditor and executor, or debtor and executor, meet in the same individual, the law considers the contest as settled — at least as long as the union' exists. . As soon therefore, as it appears to the Court, that the same individual is both Plaintiff and Defendant, any judgment entered up in the. cause is, to say the least» erroneous, and should be reversed.

¶2 I am not prepared to say, whether a writ of error, or a motion to vacate, is the most pioper mode of proceeding in this ease; but I am satisfied, that a writ of error is a proper remedy, although it may not be the only proper one. '

¶3 The judgment of the, Superior Court, reversing the original judgment, must be affirmed.

¶4 Pi,R Curiam. — Judgment of reversal affirmed.

/12/nc/315 · .json · Public domain