Gordon v. Fredle
| Decision Date | 20 June 1934 |
| Docket Number | 566. |
| Citation | 175 S.E. 126,206 N.C. 734 |
| Parties | GORDON v. FREDLE et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Surry County; Shaw, Emergency Judge.
Action by Carrie Gordon against John Fredle and another. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
This is an action to recover damages for slander. The defendants, in their answer, deny the allegation in the complaint that they published the defamatory words as alleged therein, and plead the six months' statute of limitations.
The evidence for the plaintiff tended to show that during the year 1923 or 1924, the defendant Dock Vaughn, at the request of the defendant John Fredle, wrote and addressed to the husband of the plaintiff letters containing the defamatory words alleged in the complaint; and that these letters were received by the husband of the plaintiff through the mail. The letters were anonymous and were read to the plaintiff and her husband, who are unable to read, by their son. The plaintiff was deeply distressed when her son read the defamatory words contained in the letters, and was greatly humiliated by the false charge made against her. She did not discover that the defendants were the authors of the letters received by her husband until some time in December, 1928. This action was begun on February 29, 1929.
At the close of the evidence for the plaintiff, upon the intimation of the court that on the facts shown by all the evidence he would instruct the jury that the action, having been begun more than six months after the cause of action alleged in the complaint accrued, was barred by the statute of limitations the plaintiff excepted, submitted to a judgment of nonsuit and appealed to the Supreme Court.
E. C Bivens and Carter & Carter, all of Mt. Airy, for appellant.
Folger & Folger, of Mt. Airy, and W. R. Badgett, of Pilot Mountain for appellees.
The cause of action alleged in the complaint accrued at the date of the publication of the defamatory words, which the plaintiff contends are actionable per se. 37 C.J. 17; 17 R. C. L. 372.
All the evidence shows that the said defamatory words were published in 1923 or 1924, and that the action was begun on February 29, 1929. The action was not begun within six months after the cause of action accrued, and for that reason is barred by the statute of limitations. C. S. § 444.
It is immaterial that the action was begun within...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. Russell
...the author only at a later date." Price v. J.C. Penney Co., 26 N.C. App. 249, 252, 216 S.E.2d 154, 156 (1975) (citing Gordon v. Fredle, 206 N.C. 734, 175 S.E. 126 (1934)).• Malicious Prosecution: The applicable statute of limitations for malicious prosecution is three years. N.C. Gen. Stat.......
-
Hicks v. Purvis
... ... thereof complained of." The statute, therefore, began to ... run from the time of the ""breach thereof ... complained of." Gordon v. Fredle, 206 N.C. 734, ... 175 S.E. 126. This is the clear meaning of the statute, and ... plaintiffs have declared upon alleged breaches which ... ...
-
Omari v. Buchanan
... ... Progress Solar Sols., LLC v. Fire Prot., Inc., 2019 ... WL 3544072, at *4 (E.D. N.C. Aug. 1, 2019) (citing, inter ... alia, Gordon v. Fredle, 206 N.C. 734, 734 ... (1934); Home v. Cumberland Cty. Hosp. Sys., Inc., ... 746 S.E.2d 13, 20 (N.C. App. 2013)) ... ...
-
Pressley v. Continental Can Co., Inc.
...libel action must be brought within one year, G.S. 1-54(3), of the date it accrues, which is the date of publication. Gordon v. Fredle, 206 N.C. 734, 175 S.E. 126 (1934); Price v. Penney Co., 26 N.C.App. 249, 216 S.E.2d 154 (1975), Cert. denied, 288 N.C. 243, 217 S.E.2d 666 (1975). Here, th......