Andrews v. . Mulford

2 N.C. 311
Superior Court of North Carolina·Decided May 5, 1796·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinions

HAYWOOD, J., only present. Will it not be proper to consider whether, if the act of limitations began to run from the time actual possession was taken (which is stated to have been in the lifetime of Mr. Waddle, the patentee, and about three years before he went to Europe) its operation can be suspended by his going beyond sea, or by his death, leaving infant heirs.

Counsel for the plaintiff: General Davie and myself have formerly considered of that question. It is a rule adopted only in the case of fines in England; it does not apply to the act of limitations.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Andrews v. . Mulford, 2 N.C. 311 (N.C. Ct. App. 1796).

2 N.C. 311 (Andrews v. . Mulford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cothran v. Akers Motor Lines, Inc.
127 S.E.2d 578 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1962)
Dobbins v. Dobbins.
53 S.E. 870 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1906)
Frisbee v. Town of Marshall
30 S.E. 21 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1898)
Pearce v. . House
4 N.C. 722 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1817)
Den on Demise of Tyrrell v. Mooney
5 N.C. 401 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1810)
Cobham v. . Neill
3 N.C. 5 (Superior Court of North Carolina, 1797)