Baucum v. Streater
| Decision Date | 31 December 1857 |
| Citation | 5 Jones 70,50 N.C. 70 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | HENRY BAUCUM v. JAMES F. STREATER et al. |
The statute of limitations to an action for the breach of a warranty of soundness, does not begin to run from the time when an injury befals the purchaser in consequence of the unsoundness, but from the date of the contract.
ACTION of ASSUMPSIT, tried before PERSON, J., at the Fall Term, 1857, of Union Superior Court.
The plaintiff purchased the slave, Mary, from the defendants, on 14th January, 1852, with a written contract of soundness, and five days afterwards he sold her to Mrs. Livingston with a like warranty of soundness. She brought suit against him for a breach of the warranty, and at fall term, 1855, of Montgomery Superior Court, recovered a judgment against him for such breach. He produced, in evidence, a record of this recovery, and contended that the statute of limitations only began to run from the date of such recovery, as he was not before that time advised of the slave's unsoundness.
The Court intimated an opinion that the cause of action arose immediately upon the making the warranty, and that, three years having elapsed from that date, the right of action was barred.
Plaintiff, in submission to the opinion of the Court, took a nonsuit and appealed.
No counsel appeared for the plaintiff in this Court.Ashe, for the defendants .
The action is in Assumpsit to recover damages for a false warranty of soundness of a negro woman named Mary. The contract of warranty was made on 14th of January, 1852, and the writ issued on the 2nd day of October, 1855. The defendant relies on the statute of limitations. The sole question for us to decide is, when did the plaintiff's right of action accrue? The plaintiff sold Mary to a Mrs. Livingston, who sued him for a breach of his contract, and recovered judgment at fall term, 1855, of Montgomery Superior Court. If his right of action accrued from the date of that judgment, then the statute does not bar; if on the breach of the contract, then the statute is a bar. The action is on a contract of soundness, and if the slave was, at the time of its execution, unsound, the contract was instanter broken, and the cause of action then accrued to the plaintiff. It is not at this day an open question, whether the statute begins to run from the breach of the contract; the case of Wilcox v. Plummer, 4 Peters' Rep. 177, is full authority. The action was against an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jewell v. Price, 287
...206 N.C. 734, 175 S.E. 126; Daniel v. Grizzard, 117 N.C. 105, 23 S.E. 93; Shackelford v. Staton, 117 N.C. 73, 23 S.E. 101; Baucum v. Streater, 50 N.C. 70; 1 Am.Jur.2d, Actions § 89 (1962); 54 C.J.S. Limitations of Actions § 168 (1948). See Note, 19 N.C.L. Rev. In this case, defendant's negl......
-
Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 463
...not within the statutory period, although injury may result from it within the period of limitation.' In this connection, see Baucum v. Streater, 50 N.C. 70; Hughes v. Newsom, 86 N.C. 424; Daniel v. Grizzard, 117 N.C. 105, 23 S.E. 93; Bank of Spruce Pine v. McKinney, 209 N.C. 668, 184 S.E. ......
-
Hall v. Gurley Milling Company of Selma, NC, Civ. No. 2833.
...the case by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in Styron. In Heath the Supreme Court expressly approved two very old cases, Baucum v. Streater, 50 N.C. 70 (1857), and Taylor v. McMurray, 58 N.C. 357 (1860), in which it was held that the statute of limitations against an action to recover f......
-
Woodland Oil Co. v. A.M. Byers & Co.
...v. Blakeslee, 189 Pa. 13; Noonan v. Pardee, 200 Pa. 474; Carpet Co. v. Dornan, 64 Mo.App. 17; Allen v. Todd, 6 N.Y.S. Ct. 222; Baucum v. Streater, 50 N.C. 70; Taylor McMurray, 58 N.C. 357; Motley v. Montgomery, 2 Bailey (S.C.), 544. A set-off to a set-off will not be permitted: Russell v. M......