Legal Opinion

Barden v. Stickney.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 21, 1903PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Petition to rehear this case, reported in 130 N. C., 62.

1Opinion of the CourtClark, C. J.

This is a petition of the plaintiff to rehear this case decided, 130 N. C., 62, where the facts axe stated. Without further reconsidering the former opinion it is sufficient to' say that the Statute of Limitations is a complete bar to the petitioner. Ayers bought in his own name and without disclosing any agency, and if he was in fact .the undisclosed agent of Mrs. Barden, the statute began to run against him, and against her as well, whenever he had a right to recover back the money paid. If he ever possessed such right, he had it immediately upon payment by him of the money. The alleged…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Barden v. Stickney.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1902
  2. Miller v. LeaCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1872

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Fulp v. FulpSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  2. Hayden v. . HaydenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
  3. In Re Herring's WillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
  4. Morisey v. . BrownSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
  5. Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. GrimesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922

2 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