Boyden v. . Odeneal
Supreme Court of North Carolina
From Stokes. Case for words tried before Norwood, Judge, and on the ¡rial, the only question was, whether the Plaintiff was barred by the statute of limitations.
Read the full summary
From Stokes. Case for words tried before Norwood, Judge, and on the ¡rial, the only question was, whether the Plaintiff was barred by the statute of limitations. Tbe entry in the margin of tbe writ was in these words, “issued the 18th day of July 1823,” and the Defendant offi-red to prove that in Fact the writ was not issued until the 28th of September, 1823. This evidence was opposed on the part of the Plaintiff, who proved that the writ was filled up and issued by T. Lacy, an attorney of the Court below, and contended that the entry in his handwriting was conclusive of the time of issuing…
1Opinion of the Court
The point to be decided is whether the defendant may prove that the indorsement on the writ as to the time of issuing it is wrong, and that in truth it was issued several months later. The act of 1777, sec. 13, made it the duty of the clerk or attorney issuing original process to mark thereon the day on which the same shall be issued, and this duty is enforced under a heavy penalty. The fact as to the time when a writ issued is all important in cases where the statute of limitations is relied upon, since the action must be commenced or brought within the different periods specified after the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Brittain v. Hitchcock.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1900