Hardin v. Greene
Decision Date | 10 December 1913 |
Citation | 80 S.E. 413,164 N.C. 99 |
Parties | HARDIN ET AL. v. GREENE ET AL. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Watauga County; Daniels, Judge.
Action by H. J. Hardin and others against Mattie J. Greene administratrix of L. L. Greene, deceased, and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Reversed in part and new trial ordered.
An order allowing the filing of an amended answer, being unconditional and unrestricted, gives as much right to set up the statute of limitations as any other defense.
Civil action tried upon these issues:
"(1) In what amount, if any, is the defendant Mattie J. Greene, administratrix, indebted to the plaintiff H. J. Hardin? Answer: $2,000, with interest on $1,500 from August 4, 1902.
(2) In what amount, if anything, is defendant M. J. Greene, administratrix, indebted to plaintiff A. W. Beach, administrator? Answer: $479.63, with interest from May 2, 1892.
(3) In what amount, if anything, is defendant M. J. Greene, administratrix, indebted to plaintiff M. N. Horton, administrator? Answer: Nothing.
(4) Is the debt of the plaintiff H. J. Hardin barred by the statute of limitations? Answer: No.
(5) Is the debt of M. N. Horton, administrator, barred by the statute of limitations? Answer: No."
F. A. Linney, of Boone, and T. A. Love, of Saginaw, for appellants.
L. D. Lowe, of Banners Elk, for appellees.
This is an action in the nature of a creditor's bill brought to collect certain judgments set out in the record against the defendant's intestate in favor of H. J. Hardin and A. W. Beach, administrator of John Ragan.
The assignments of error relate largely to the statute of limitations.
The judgment upon which plaintiff Hardin sues was rendered fall term, 1902, upon a number of small judgments against L. L. Greene in favor of W. T. Hayes and others. It is admitted that the judgment was duly assigned to plaintiff Hardin. As the summons in this action was issued on June 27, 1910, less than eight years have elapsed from the time of the rendition of the judgment until this action was commenced. We are unable, therefore, to see anything upon which to found the plea of the statute as to that judgment. It is immaterial whether the small judgments, upon which this judgment was rendered at fall term, 1902, were barred or not. The statute should have been pleaded as to them in that action. The matters determined by the judgment at fall term, 1902, cannot now be considered. They are foreclosed by that decree. We find no error as to the rulings of the court in respect to the Hardin judgment, and the judgment of the court in that particular is affirmed.
The defendants assign error for that his honor signed the order striking out defendants' amended answer in so far as it affected the plaintiff A. W. Beach, administrator. The order is as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial