Legal Opinion

Moore v. City of Charlotte

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 25, 1933PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClakksoN, J.

Where the defendant properly pleads a statute of limitations tbe burden is on the plaintiff to show that the action was brought within the time limit fixed by the statute pleaded, or in other words it is not barred by the statute that is pleaded. Tillery v. Lumber Co., 172 N. C., 296; Marks v. McLeod, 203 N. C., at p. 258-9.

Plaintiff contends: “The only question arising in this case, and presented to the Supreme Court upon appeal, is whether or not the plaintiff’s cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations.” We think it is.

The extension of the city limits was 1 January, 1928. The…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Abbott Realty Co. v. City of CharlotteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  2. Tillery v. Whiteville Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
  3. Stephens Co. v. City of CharlotteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  4. Dockery v. Town of HamletSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
  5. Board of Education v. Town of GreenvilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1903

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Davis v. . AlexanderSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  2. Aldridge v. . DixonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
  3. Valleytown TP. v. Women's Catholic Order of ForestersCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API