Callis v. Waddy
| Decision Date | 05 December 1811 |
| Citation | 16 Va. 511 |
| Parties | Callis v. Waddy |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
To an action on the case for a deceit, the defendant Callis pleaded, " not guilty," and, for further plea " that the cause of action, if any, did not accrue within five years next before suing out the capias ad respondendum in this cause." The plaintiff joined issue to the first plea; and, to the second replied that the plaintiff ought not to be precluded from his said action " by any thing by the defendant above in pleading alleged; because the plaintiff sued out his writ in the said court, against the said defendant for the same cause of action, within the time prescribed by the act of limitations which was executed and returned by the sheriff of said county, and which went off the docket for want of formality also because his cause of action, as alleged in his declaration aforesaid, is founded on a fraud, and the plaintiff avers that the same came to his knowledge within the time prescribed by law for the bringing of this kind of actions, (to wit,) within five years previous to his suing out his writ in this cause; and this he is ready to verify," & c.
The defendant filed a rejoinder, " that the plaintiff his action ought not to have, & c. for any thing by him in his replication aforesaid alleged, because the defendant says there is no such record in the said court, of a suit by the same plaintiff against the defendant for the same cause of action; and this he prays may be inquired of by the court, & c. also because the fraud in this cause, if any there was, did not first come to the knowledge of the plaintiff within five years prior to the suing out of the writ in this cause," & c.
Issues being so joined, a jury was empaneled; and at the trial, the defendant tendered a demurrer to evidence; but the court being of opinion that the case was clear in the plaintiff's favour, refused to compel him to join in demurrer; where-upon, a bill of exceptions was signed and sealed. A verdict was found for the plaintiff, for 2661. 6s. damages; and judgment entered accordingly; which being affirmed by the district court, the defendant obtained a writ of supersedeas from a judge of the court of appeals.
OPINIONAfter argument, by Wirt, for the plaintiff in error, and Peyton Randolph, contra, the following was delivered as the opinion of this court.
" This court, not deeming it necessary to decide upon the point made by the bill of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKneely v. Terry
... ... Bacon , 99 Mass. 213; ... Traer v. Clews , 115 U.S. 528, 29 L.Ed. 467, ... 6 S.Ct. 155; Troup v. Smith , 20 Johns. (N ... Y.) 33; Callis v. Waddy , 16 Va. 511, 2 ... Munf. 511 ... Our ... statute is, in express terms, made applicable to suits in ... equity, as ... ...
-
Hill v. Pipkins
...Ark. 78; 66 Ark. 327. The note was barred by the statute of limitations. 70 F. 529; 3 Mason, 329; 1 Paige, 239; 19 How. 69; 38 Miss. 503; 2 Munf. 511; 23 Ark. 510; S.W. 103, 425; 14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 307; Sand. & H. Dig. § 5717. The plea of res judicata should have been sustained. 11 Hun. 325; ......
-
Jones v. Morris Plan Bank Of Portsmouth
...in the absence of express statutory provision the mere pendency of a suit does not toll the statute of limitations. See Callis v. Wad dy, 2 Munf. 511, 16 Va. 511; Gray's Adm'x v. Berryman, 4 Munf. 181, 18 Va. 181; Braxton v. Wood's Adm'r, 4 Grat. 25, 45 Va. 25; Dawes v. New York, etc., R. C......