Butner v. . Keelhn
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Action on tiie case, tried before Saundees, J., at Spring Term, 1858, of Forsyth Superior Court. This was an action on the case for injuries done to the plaintiff’s house, in which the testator was a lodger, by his conducting certain experiments with gun-powder and other inflamable substances, so carelessly and negligently, that an explosion took place, whereby the house was much torn and shattered.
Read the full summary
Action on tiie case, tried before Saundees, J., at Spring Term, 1858, of Forsyth Superior Court. This was an action on the case for injuries done to the plaintiff’s house, in which the testator was a lodger, by his conducting certain experiments with gun-powder and other inflamable substances, so carelessly and negligently, that an explosion took place, whereby the house was much torn and shattered. The testator himself was much injured also, and died in a few hours ; and the action was brought against his executor. On the trial, the counsel for the defendant, insisted that the action did not…
1Opinion of the CourtRuffin, J.
It was admitted, by the■ counsel, for the defendant, that if an action had been brought against the testator, in this case, it might have been revived and presented against the executor. But it was contended that it could not be brought originally against the executor. The distinction is taken on the terms used in the acts of 1799 and 1805, and those prior, which are confined to the “ revival” of actions for tort and preventing them from “ abating,” and do not give “ actions” against executors or administrators. There is that peculiarity in the phraseology of all the older statutes on this…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Mast v. Sapp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- McIntyre v. JoseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Arnold v. . LanierSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1814
- Mast v. Sapp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906