Legal Opinion

Brock v. . Franck

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 12, 1927PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClaeksoN, J.

The plaintiff brings this action against defendant to recover $850.45, balance due, and alleges “that the entire account owed by this defendant is an open and running account.”

The defendant pleads the statute of limitations, as follows: “That any items of indebtedness due or alleged to be due, which this defend ant denies, were procured prior to three years before the institution of this action, and this defendant specifically pleads the three-year statute of limitations in complete bar of the plaintiff’s right to recover on such accounts.”

This action was commenced by the summons being issued…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Stokes v. . TaylorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
  2. Carter v. CantyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Furlow Pressed Brick Co. v. Balboa Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Brazell v. HearnCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
  5. Shuler v. CorlCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Whitley's Electric Service, Inc. v. SherrodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  2. Hansen v. FettigNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Simon v. MockCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  4. Richlands Supply Co. v. BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
  5. Tew v. . HinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939

1 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