Legal Opinion

Kilpatrick v. . Kilpatrick

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 9, 1924PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHoke, J.

Our statute (C. S., 416) provides that no acknowledgment - or promise is evidence of a new or continuing contract, from which statute of limitations runs, unless it is contained in some writing, signed by the party to be charged thereby, “but this section does not alter the effect of any payment of principal or interest.” And in our decisions construing the section it is held that the same does not restrict or modify in any way the effect of a payment under the general principles prevailing in this jurisdiction when the statute was enacted. Battle v. Battle, 116 N. C., 161; Bank v. Harris, 96…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Battle v. . BattleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
  2. Cashmar-King Supply Co. v. Dowd & KingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
  3. State National Bank v. HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Smith v. . DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1947
  2. Smith v. DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1947
  3. Whitley's Electric Service, Inc. v. SherrodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  4. Saieed v. . AbeyounisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  5. Nance v. . HulinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API