White v. Scott
Decision Date | 10 December 1919 |
Docket Number | 476. |
Citation | 101 S.E. 369,178 N.C. 637 |
Parties | WHITE v. SCOTT. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Cabarrus County; Harding, Judge.
Action by Rachael E. White, administratrix, against A. J. Scott. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. No error.
Plaintiff alleged that defendant had executed to her intestate, Mary J Scott, three notes, one for $250 on March 14, 1896; one for $50 on April 3, 1897; and the remaining one for $320 on July 9, 1896, all of them due one day after date, with interest from date. On the first note, the last payment was made on March 13, 1899, on the second on April 3, 1899, and on the third on July 9, 1898, and there were no later payments of any kind. Mrs. Scott died on June 19, 1916. This action was commenced on June 9, 1917. The payments were entered as credit on the notes.
The defendant admitted the due execution of the notes, denied the date of payment on the third note, alleged that a large part of the notes was intended as a gift from his mother, to whom the notes were payable, and pleaded the statute of limitation of ten years.
The plaintiff replied as to the statute that Mrs. Scott was non compos mentis for some time after an illness, though there was evidence that she had lucid intervals and her mental aberration was not continuous. The plaintiff's witness W L. Winecoff testified:
The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant was agent of his mother during the time of the transaction in regard to the notes.
The court granted a motion of the defendant to nonsuit the plaintiff, and judgment was entered accordingly. Plaintiff appealed.
J. L Crowell and H. S. Williams, both of Concord, for appellant.
Maness & Armfield and L. T. Hartsell, all of Concord, for appellee.
WALKER J. (after stating the facts as above).
The defendant executed the three notes to the plaintiff as far back as the years 1896 and 1897, so that they are barred by the statute of limitations, unless the plaintiff's intestate was insane at the time the cause of action upon the notes accrued, for that is the language of the statute, as will appear by this reproduction of it:
"No person shall avail...
To continue reading
Request your trial