Wells v. Hill
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil aotiou. by the plaintiff as fixe North Carolina administrator of J. L. Hill, (who died domiciled in South' Carolina,) against the defendant on a note dated April 27, .1885, for $3,915.86, payable one day after date. There were endorsed credits of $582,94 on February 1, 1888.’ The action was commenced on 21st June, 1893. The defendant pleaded the bar of the Statute of Limitations.
Read the full summary
Civil aotiou. by the plaintiff as fixe North Carolina administrator of J. L. Hill, (who died domiciled in South' Carolina,) against the defendant on a note dated April 27, .1885, for $3,915.86, payable one day after date. There were endorsed credits of $582,94 on February 1, 1888.’ The action was commenced on 21st June, 1893. The defendant pleaded the bar of the Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff introduced E. E. Hill, who, together with his brother, "W". A. Hill, had administered on the estate of their father (the intestate of plaintiff) in South Carolina, to prove an acknowledgment and…
1DissentFurches, J.
I do not concur in the opin-
ion of the Court. This is an action of debt upon a plain note of hand for §3,915.86, dated April 27, 1885, and this action was commenced on the .. day of.., 1893. The execution of the note, and that the same has not been paid, are admittod by defendant. But he pleaded and relies on the Statute of Limitations as a bar to plaintiff’s recovery. To rebut the bar of the statute, the plaintiff offered in .evidence four letters from the defendant. The last one of these letters is ([noted from in the opinion of the Court. But, it seems to me that the most material part of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Taylor v. . MillerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
- Henly v. . LanierSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1876
- Simonton v. . ClarkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1871
- Royster v. . FarrellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894