Edwin Bates & Co. v. E. B. Herren & Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
'Givil ACTION, tried before Avery, Judge, and a jury, at Fall Term, 1886, of Haywood Superior Court. This was an action commenced before a justice of the peace on the 10th day of May, 1883, for the recovery of the .sum of one hundred and sixty-five dollars and seventy-three cents and interest tliereon from the 16th of February, 1876, alleged to be due by note not under seal, and carried to the Superior Court by appeal of the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
'Givil ACTION, tried before Avery, Judge, and a jury, at Fall Term, 1886, of Haywood Superior Court. This was an action commenced before a justice of the peace on the 10th day of May, 1883, for the recovery of the .sum of one hundred and sixty-five dollars and seventy-three cents and interest tliereon from the 16th of February, 1876, alleged to be due by note not under seal, and carried to the Superior Court by appeal of the plaintiffs. The defendants pleaded the statute of limitations. The plaintiff introduced the note, signed “ E. B. Herren & Go.,” dated October 16th, 1875, and due four…
1Opinion of the CourtAshe, J.
(after stating the facts). The only question presented by this record for our determination, is whether the debt sued for is barred by the statute of limitations.
The promise made by the first administrator, A. J. Herren, was conditional, depending upon his selling some stock and making collections, and it does not appear that he ever sold the stock. This promise had no effect in obstructing the running of the statute.-
Then the promise of the administrator, S. C. hierren, that he would pay the note, if Mr. Cocke and his client would put him to no trouble, was made more than three years after…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Barcroft & Co. v. Roberts & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
3Cited by2 opinions
- George W. Helm Co. v. GriffinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
- Murray v. . PennySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891