Frederick v. . Williams

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Frederick v. . Williams

9 S.E. 298, 103 N.C. 189

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 5, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 9 S.E. 298 (Frederick v. . Williams) 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

Frederick v. . Williams, 9 S.E. 298, 103 N.C. 189 (N.C. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Shepherd, J.

(after stating the case). The defendant, after the maturity of the mortgage debt, entered into'“ the adverse possession” of the property on the 1st day of January, 1874. The mortgagor died about the 1st of January, 1883. The statute of limitations (The Code, § 152, par. 4) had, therefore, run against him for a period of nine years. This action was brought on the 6th day of June, 1887, and is barred, unless the plaintiffs can bring themselves within *191 some of the disabilities prescribed by The Code. It is well settled that, when the statute of limitations begins to run, nothing stops it. “ So, when it begins to run against the ancestor, it is not suspended by a,ny statutory disability in the heirs at the time of descent cast.” Wood on Limitations, 11; Pearce v. House, Term Rep., 722 Four years after the death of the mortgagor, and about three after the equity of redemption had been barred (Bruner v. Threadgill, 88 N. C., 361), the heirs of the mortgagor, who are infants, bring this suit to redeem.

We see nothing in section 148 of The Code, cited by counsel, which changes the law as it formerly existed, nor do we see how section 168 of The Code can help the plaintiffs. Conceding that this section relates to actions other than personal, the plaintiffs have not brought themselves within its terms by suing within a year after the death of their ancestor, and there is no saving, as to infancy, in the section referred to.

There is no error in the ruling of his Honor, and the judgment will be affirmed.

No error. Affirmed.

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

Shepherd, J.

(after stating the case). The defendant, after the maturity of the mortgage debt, entered into'“ the adverse possession” of the property on the 1st day of January, 1874. The mortgagor died about the 1st of January, 1883. The statute of limitations (The Code, § 152, par. 4) had, therefore, run against him for a period of nine years. This action was brought on the 6th day of June, 1887, and is barred, unless the plaintiffs can bring themselves within *191 some of the disabilities prescribed by The Code. It is well settled that, when the statute of limitations begins to run, nothing stops it. “ So, when it begins to run against the ancestor, it is not suspended by a,ny statutory disability in the heirs at the time of descent cast.” Wood on Limitations, 11; Pearce v. House, Term Rep., 722 Four years after the death of the mortgagor, and about three after the equity of redemption had been barred (Bruner v. Threadgill, 88 N. C., 361), the heirs of the mortgagor, who are infants, bring this suit to redeem.

We see nothing in section 148 of The Code, cited by counsel, which changes the law as it formerly existed, nor do we see how section 168 of The Code can help the plaintiffs. Conceding that this section relates to actions other than personal, the plaintiffs have not brought themselves within its terms by suing within a year after the death of their ancestor, and there is no saving, as to infancy, in the section referred to.

There is no error in the ruling of his Honor, and the judgment will be affirmed.

No error. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 S.E. 298, 103 N.C. 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frederick-v-williams-nc-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack