Topping v. . Blount
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Beaufort County, at the Spring Term I860, His Honor, Judge Bailey, presiding. The plaintiff declared in several counts in assumpsit, but the only question made in the bill of exceptions arises on a count, charging the defendant as endorser of a bond for @652,22, executed by Littlejohn Topping and William Holland, on the 22 nd. of January 1837, andpayable twelve months after date to Blount.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Beaufort County, at the Spring Term I860, His Honor, Judge Bailey, presiding. The plaintiff declared in several counts in assumpsit, but the only question made in the bill of exceptions arises on a count, charging the defendant as endorser of a bond for @652,22, executed by Littlejohn Topping and William Holland, on the 22 nd. of January 1837, andpayable twelve months after date to Blount. The pleas were non as*’ sumpsit and the statute of limitations. On the trial the evidence was, that, about the time the bond fell due, the defendant endorsed it in…
1Opinion of the CourtRuffin, C. J.
It is difficult to conceive the meaning of the proposition, that, from the act of giving a new bond in place of a previous one, a promise is implied by law to pay such prior bond. To whom can the promise be supposed to be made ? and to what end is it to be implied, when the debtor actually gave an obligation under seal for the same money 1 It is somewhat suprising, therefore, that the plaintiff should have had a verdict upon any part of the case. But, without notice of that point, the Court holds the instructions and verdict upon the statute of limitations to be unquestionably correct. The…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Ingersoll v. . LongSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1838
- Garrett v. . ReevesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1899
- Williams v. . IrwinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1838