From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

House v. Arnold

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Mar 1, 1898
29 S.E. 334 (N.C. 1898)

Summary

In Arnold v. House, 12 S.C. 600, in 1879, and in Childs v. Frazee, 15 S.C. 612, in 1880, interest was recovered against a purchaser of land for cash at a judicial sale.

Summary of this case from Atlantic Phosphate Company v. Grafflin

Opinion

(Decided 8 March, 1898.)

Statute of Limitations — Burden of Proof.

1. Where the statute of limitations is pleaded the burden is upon the plaintiff to show that the cause of action accrued within the time limited.

2. Where a party upon whom the burden of proof rests fails to offer evidence to sustain it, it is proper for the trial judge to direct a verdict against him.

ACTION, tried before Robinson, J., and a jury, at October Term, 1897, of WAKE.

(221) Jones Boykin for plaintiff (appellant).

Argo Snow for defendant.


The statute of limitations having been pleaded, the burden was upon the plaintiff to show that the cause of action accrued within the time limited. Parker v. Harden, 121 N.C. 57; Graham v. O'Bryan, 120 N.C. 463; Koonce v. Pelletier, 115 N.C. 233; Hobbs v. Barefoot, 104 N.C. 224; Moore v. Gardner, 101 N.C. 374; Hussey v. Kirkman, 95 N.C. 63. The evidence was that the plaintiff's (222) testatrix was adjudged restored to sanity in 1889, and after demand made by her on her guardian, defendant's testator, for her estate, an order was made to restore the same to her; and it was further in evidence that the said guardian was indebted to his ward in the sum of about $500, which has never been paid. It is not necessary to decide whether the statute began to run from the termination of the trust upon the adjudication of sanity in 1889 or upon the demand and failure to pay, for if it began to run only from the latter, the plaintiff, having failed to show that it was within three years before the action begun (in May, 1906), is barred. Kennedy v. Cromwell, 108 N.C. 1, and cases therein cited. The burden being upon him, there was no error in his Honor's intimating that he would instruct the jury to find against him. Spruill v. Ins. Co., 120 N.C. 141; Collins v. Swanson, 121 N.C. 67; Bank v. School Committee, ibid., 107; White v. R. R., ibid., 484.

No error.

Cited: Houston v. Thornton, post, 375; Dunn v. Beaman, 126 N.C. 769; Hooker v. Worthington, 134 N.C. 285; Dunn v. Dunn, 137 N.C. 534; Sprinkle v. Sprinkle, 159 N.C. 82; Ditmore v. Rexford, 165 N.C. 621.


Summaries of

House v. Arnold

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Mar 1, 1898
29 S.E. 334 (N.C. 1898)

In Arnold v. House, 12 S.C. 600, in 1879, and in Childs v. Frazee, 15 S.C. 612, in 1880, interest was recovered against a purchaser of land for cash at a judicial sale.

Summary of this case from Atlantic Phosphate Company v. Grafflin

In Arnold v. House a valid and bona fide judgment, while it was still in force, had been fraudulently renewed for more than was due, and the judgment was held valid to the extent of the amount due on the original judgment; the Court saying: "It does not follow that an improper use of a valid security destroys the proper right under the security itself.

Summary of this case from Miller v. Wroton
Case details for

House v. Arnold

Case Details

Full title:J. E. HOUSE, EXECUTOR OF C. NICHOLS, v. W. M. ARNOLD, EXECUTOR OF BENJAMIN…

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Mar 1, 1898

Citations

29 S.E. 334 (N.C. 1898)
122 N.C. 220

Citing Cases

Miller v. Wroton

Both the special referee and his Honor, the Circuit Judge, find as matter of fact that there was no intention…

Teachey v. Gurley

In such instances the breach of the trust is in effect and, usually, in fact a breach of contract, express or…