Finch's Executors v. Elliot
Supreme Court of North Carolina
From Rutherford. This was an action on the case, brought to recover the amount of two orders drawn by one Nelson, in favour of the plaintiff’s testator, on the defendant, and which had been accepted by the defendant in 1812. Defendant pleaded, among other things, the statute of limitations; and on the trial it was proved by a Mr. Hord on behalf of plaintiff, that in the year 1817 the orders were sent to him by plaintiff, who lived in Virginia, for collection; that he called…
Read the full summary
From Rutherford. This was an action on the case, brought to recover the amount of two orders drawn by one Nelson, in favour of the plaintiff’s testator, on the defendant, and which had been accepted by the defendant in 1812. Defendant pleaded, among other things, the statute of limitations; and on the trial it was proved by a Mr. Hord on behalf of plaintiff, that in the year 1817 the orders were sent to him by plaintiff, who lived in Virginia, for collection; that he called on the defendant and in a conversation with him he produced a number of papers, from which the witness became satisfied…
1Opinion of the Court
The court, on this evidence, instructed the jury that nothing short of an express acknowledgment of a subsisting debt, at the time of making the acknowledgment, could take a case out of the statute; that an agreement to settle would have that effect, and it was for them to (62) say whether any such agreement was made by the defendant at the times spoken of by Hord; if there was, they were instructed to find for the plaintiff, and if not, for the defendant.
The jury found for the plaintiff, and the case stood on a rule to show cause why there should not be a new trial. When the court charged…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hatton v. . DewSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1814