Best v. . Town of Kinston

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Best v. . Town of Kinston

10 S.E. 997, 106 N.C. 205

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 5, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by32 cases

This text of 10 S.E. 997 (Best v. . Town of Kinston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Best v. . Town of Kinston, 10 S.E. 997, 106 N.C. 205 (N.C. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Shepherd, J.:

This -action is brought by the administra-trix of John H. Best, deceased, to recover damages resulting from the death of her intestate, occasioned, it is alleged, by reason of the negligence of the defendant.

Such an action could not be brought at common law, and is only entertained by the Courts under the provision of The Code, § 1498, which embraces the principal features of the humane legislation known as “Lord Campbell's Act.” The period prescribed for the commencement of such an action is “one year after the death of the intestate,” and it has been decided in several States “that the right of action vests at the death which is the cause of action,” and that the statute of limitations begins to run from that time, although an administrator has not been appointed. Pierce on Railroads, 400, citing Fowlkes v. N. & D. Railroad Co., 9 Heisk., 829; 5 Baxter, 663; Jeffersonville, M. & I. Railroad Co. v. Hendricks, 41 Ind., 48; Needham v. Grand Trunk Railroad Co., 38 Vt., 294, 306. See also AVood’s Railway Law, 1415. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff (in which the non-existence of an administrator is said to be material) relate only to cases arising under the general law of limitations and presumptions, and have no application to a case under the above section of The Code. It has so been expressly held by this Court in Taylor v. Cranberry Iron Co., 94 N. C., 525. The Court says that “this is not strictly a statute of limitations. It gives a right of action that would not otherwise exist, and the action to enforce it must be brought within one year after the death of the testator or intestate, *207 else the right of action will be lost. It must be accepted, in all respects, as the statute gives it. Why the action was not brought within the time does not appear, but any explanation in that respect would be unavailing, as there is no saving clause as to the time within which the action must be begun.”

There, as in this case, the action was brought more than a year after the death of the intestate, and it was held that it could not be maintained. ■ This is decisive of the present case.

No error.

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

Shepherd, J.:

This -action is brought by the administra-trix of John H. Best, deceased, to recover damages resulting from the death of her intestate, occasioned, it is alleged, by reason of the negligence of the defendant.

Such an action could not be brought at common law, and is only entertained by the Courts under the provision of The Code, § 1498, which embraces the principal features of the humane legislation known as “Lord Campbell's Act.” The period prescribed for the commencement of such an action is “one year after the death of the intestate,” and it has been decided in several States “that the right of action vests at the death which is the cause of action,” and that the statute of limitations begins to run from that time, although an administrator has not been appointed. Pierce on Railroads, 400, citing Fowlkes v. N. & D. Railroad Co., 9 Heisk., 829; 5 Baxter, 663; Jeffersonville, M. & I. Railroad Co. v. Hendricks, 41 Ind., 48; Needham v. Grand Trunk Railroad Co., 38 Vt., 294, 306. See also AVood’s Railway Law, 1415. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff (in which the non-existence of an administrator is said to be material) relate only to cases arising under the general law of limitations and presumptions, and have no application to a case under the above section of The Code. It has so been expressly held by this Court in Taylor v. Cranberry Iron Co., 94 N. C., 525. The Court says that “this is not strictly a statute of limitations. It gives a right of action that would not otherwise exist, and the action to enforce it must be brought within one year after the death of the testator or intestate, *207 else the right of action will be lost. It must be accepted, in all respects, as the statute gives it. Why the action was not brought within the time does not appear, but any explanation in that respect would be unavailing, as there is no saving clause as to the time within which the action must be begun.”

There, as in this case, the action was brought more than a year after the death of the intestate, and it was held that it could not be maintained. ■ This is decisive of the present case.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 S.E. 997, 106 N.C. 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/best-v-town-of-kinston-nc-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack