From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Spivey

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Dec 1, 1850
33 N.C. 427 (N.C. 1850)

Opinion

December Term, 1850.

Where to an action on a justice's judgment the defendant pleads "the statute of limitations," the plaintiff cannot reply a new promise within the seven years. The replication of a new promise is confined to actions "on promises."

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Law of GATES, at Fall Term, 1850, Caldwell, J., presiding.

Jordan for plaintiff.

A. Moore for defendants.


This was a warrant on a former judgment of a single justice. The defendants relied on the statute of limitations. The plaintiffs in the replication alleged a new promise within the seven years. His Honor correctly decided that the statute could not thus be met. The replication of a new promise is confined to actions "on promises." This is settled in this State and England.

The other instructions were uncalled for; at all events, the plaintiff has no right to complain of them.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

Cited: Hewlett v. Schenck, 82 N.C. 235.

(428)


Summaries of

Taylor v. Spivey

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Dec 1, 1850
33 N.C. 427 (N.C. 1850)
Case details for

Taylor v. Spivey

Case Details

Full title:NATHANIEL TAYLOR v. JONAS AND WILLIAM SPIVEY

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Dec 1, 1850

Citations

33 N.C. 427 (N.C. 1850)

Citing Cases

Woods v. Locke

That rule has been held distinctly not to apply to judgments. ( McCaskill v. McKinnon, 121 N.C. 192, 61 Am.…

McDonald v. Dickson

Messrs. Burwell Walker, for plaintiff. Messrs. J. D. Shaw and Hinsdale Devereux, for defendant, cited Taylor…