From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hannah v. Ingram

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Dec 1, 1860
53 N.C. 55 (N.C. 1860)


(December Term, 1860.)

Where a writ in slander was issued, returnable to a term of the court, and no alias issued from such return term, but a writ issued from the next term thereafter, it was Held, that the latter writ was the commencement of the suit, and the limitation to the action must be determined accordingly.

SLANDER, tried before French, J., at Fall Term, 1860, of ANSON.

McCorkle for plaintiff.

R. H. Battle for defendant.

It appeared on the trial that a writ issued 14 February, 1857, returnable to March Term, which was returned "Not found," and that no writ issued to the next ensuing term thereafter, but that one issued returnable to the second term, which was March, 1858, which was marked as an alias, and pursued the language peculiar to that writ.

The court intimated an opinion that the latter writ was the commencement of the suit, and as the words were spoken more than six months prior to the date of its issuing, the action was barred. In deference to this intimation the plaintiff took a nonsuit and appealed.

The power to bring an action for words is limited (56) by Rev. Code, chap. 65, sec. 3, to six months after the speaking of them, and the question presented here is: At what time was this action commenced? When the first writ was issued or when the last?

We concur with his Honor below, that it was at the issuing of the last writ — the one from the Fall Term, 1857, to the following spring. This latter, although denominated an alias, does not connect itself with the other, so as to make one continuous suit, a term having intervened from which no process was issued. In Fulbright v. Tritt, 19 N.C. 491, it was held that such a failure, under precisely similar circumstances, worked a discontinuance of the suit, and the issuing of a writ, purporting to be an alias, at the subsequent term was the beginning of a new suit. Fulbright v. Tritt is in point, and is satisfactory to us. It decides the cause before us in accordance with the opinion of the judge below, and his judgment should, therefore, be

PER CURIAM. Affirmed.

Cited: Etheridge v. Woodley, 83 N.C. 13; Webster v. Laws, 86 N.C. 180.

Summaries of

Hannah v. Ingram

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Dec 1, 1860
53 N.C. 55 (N.C. 1860)
Case details for

Hannah v. Ingram

Case Details


Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Dec 1, 1860


53 N.C. 55 (N.C. 1860)

Citing Cases

Hatch v. R. R

The writ which issued on 15 April, 1835, against Archibald Tritt, must be considered the original in this…


This has been repeatedly decided in this court. Fulbright v. Tritt, 19 N.C. 491; Governor v. Welch, 25 N.C.…