McLeod v. Andrews
| Citation | 90 N.C. 401 |
| Case Date | February 28, 1884 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
90 N.C. 401
POPE & MCLEOD
v.
JAMES ANDREWS.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
February Term, 1884.
[90 N.C. 402]
CIVIL ACTION tried at Spring Term, 1883, of ROBESON Superior Court, before MacRae, J.
Judgment for plaintiffs; appeal by defendant.
Messrs. Rowland & McLean, for plaintiffs .Messrs. T. A. McNeill and Frank McNeill, for defendant .
SMITH, C. J.
The plaintiffs sue upon an account made up from a series of items contracted during the period from May 31st, 1877, to April 10th, 1880, and in their complaint demand the lesser sum of five hundred dollars. The answer denies the indebtedness altogether, and the defendant says: “For a further defence the defendant says that plaintiffs' alleged cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations.”
Two issues were submitted to the jury, the first in respect to the indebtedness, to which an affirmative response is rendered, and the second interrogatory, in the form in which the answer sets up the defence under the statute, to which a negative response is returned.
Upon the trial, besides evidence to prove the indebtedness and the defendant's liability therefor, the plaintiffs introduced, for the double purpose of showing an admission of the sum demanded and of removing the statutory bar, and read in evidence a letter from the defendant addressed to the plaintiffs' attorneys in whose hands the claim had been placed, and bearing date April 13th, 1882, three days after the action had been instituted, as follows:
APRIL 13th, 1882.
Messrs. ROWLAND & MCLEAN, Dear Sirs: You will please allow my son Nathan the 39 acres I let him have, in addition to what you have got in the eomplaint: and in order to settle the Pope & McLeod account against me
[90 N.C. 403]
which you have for collection, if you will take five hundred dollars in satisfaction of it, you can take judgment against me for that amount, and have it entered up court week, so I will not have to come to court.+------------------------+
¦(Signed)¦JAMES ANDREWS. ¦
+------------------------+
Witness: NATHAN D. ANDREWS.”
This letter was carried by the subscribing witness, Nathan D. Andrews, a son of the defendant, to the attorneys, and he further testified that he told his father that he had been informed by the plaintiff McLeod that the firm had brought suit on an account for $662 and some cents, and witness asked if they would accept $500 in settlement, and they had so agreed; that he thereupon asked the defendant if he would sign an agreement to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peoples Bank & Trust Co v. Tar River Lumber Co, No. 93.
...on behalf of his principal, Kirby v. Mills, 78 N.C. 124, 24 Am.Rep. 460; Shaw v. Burney, 86 N.C. 331, 41 Am.Rep. 46; Pope v. Andrews, 90 N.C. 401. Applying these principles to the facts as found by the court below, the claim of appellant is confronted with insurmountable obstacles in the wa......
-
Wilson v. Crab Orchard Development Co., No. 45
...has repeatedly been held insufficient to constitute the plea in bar. Lassiter v. Roper, 114 N.C. 17, 18 S.E. 946; Pope v. Andrews, 90 N.C. 401; Humble v. Mebane, 89 N.C. Consequently, the plaintiff having filed no reply to this plea, we turn to the complaint to see whether: (1) it fails to ......
-
Irkwood v. Peden, (No. 417.)
...the reversionary interest after the falling in of the homestead interest, the statute runs and may become a bar." In Morton v. Barber, 90 N. C. 401, it was said: "This court has held that the provisions of that act [the statute suspending the running of the statute of limitations] were only......
-
Allen v. Seay, No. 525
...132 N.C. 612, 44 S.E. 114; Lassiter v. Roper, 114 N.C. 17, 18 S.E. 946; Truner v. Shuffler, 198 N.C. 642, 13 S.E. 243; Pope v. Andrews, 90 N.C. 401; McIntosh on Practice and Procedure, 2d ed., Vol. 1, sec. 372, p. The plaintiff alleges that errors were committed in the exclusion of certain ......
-
Peoples Bank & Trust Co v. Tar River Lumber Co, No. 93.
...on behalf of his principal, Kirby v. Mills, 78 N.C. 124, 24 Am.Rep. 460; Shaw v. Burney, 86 N.C. 331, 41 Am.Rep. 46; Pope v. Andrews, 90 N.C. 401. Applying these principles to the facts as found by the court below, the claim of appellant is confronted with insurmountable obstacles in the wa......
-
Wilson v. Crab Orchard Development Co., No. 45
...has repeatedly been held insufficient to constitute the plea in bar. Lassiter v. Roper, 114 N.C. 17, 18 S.E. 946; Pope v. Andrews, 90 N.C. 401; Humble v. Mebane, 89 N.C. Consequently, the plaintiff having filed no reply to this plea, we turn to the complaint to see whether: (1) it fails to ......
-
Irkwood v. Peden, (No. 417.)
...the reversionary interest after the falling in of the homestead interest, the statute runs and may become a bar." In Morton v. Barber, 90 N. C. 401, it was said: "This court has held that the provisions of that act [the statute suspending the running of the statute of limitations] were only......
-
Allen v. Seay, No. 525
...132 N.C. 612, 44 S.E. 114; Lassiter v. Roper, 114 N.C. 17, 18 S.E. 946; Truner v. Shuffler, 198 N.C. 642, 13 S.E. 243; Pope v. Andrews, 90 N.C. 401; McIntosh on Practice and Procedure, 2d ed., Vol. 1, sec. 372, p. The plaintiff alleges that errors were committed in the exclusion of certain ......