Poore v. Norfolk-Southern Railway

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Poore v. Norfolk-Southern Railway

226 S.E.2d 170, 30 N.C. App. 104, 1976 N.C. App. LEXIS 2157

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJuly 7, 1976

DocketNo. 762SC167

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 226 S.E.2d 170 (Poore v. Norfolk-Southern Railway) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Poore v. Norfolk-Southern Railway, 226 S.E.2d 170, 30 N.C. App. 104, 1976 N.C. App. LEXIS 2157 (N.C. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

ARNOLD, Judge.

Defendant sufficiently alleged the statute of limitations as a bar to plaintiffs’ cause of action. The directed verdict for defendant was based, in part, on the grounds “that the plaintiffs’ evidence, taken in the light most favorable to them, fails to repel the bar of the Statutes of Limitation, G.S. 1-52 and/or G.S. 1-51, pleaded by the defendant in its answer, . ... ”

When defendant pleaded the statute of limitations the burden was placed on plaintiffs to show thát the action was instituted within the prescribed period. Jewel v. Price, 264 N.C. 459, 142 S.E. 2d 1 (1965). Although plaintiffs’ amended complaint contained allegations which, if true, might have been sufficient to overcome the bar of the statute of limitations, they failed to offer any evidence at trial that would repel the bar of either the five-year or three-year periods prescribed in G.S. 1-51 and G.S. 1-52.

Since the plaintiffs failed to put on evidence to meet their burden of showing that the action was brought within the prescribed periods the defendant’s motion for directed verdict was properly entered. Little v. Rose, 285 N.C. 724, 208 S.E. 2d 666 (1974); Fulp v. Fulp, 264 N.C. 20, 140 S.E. 2d 708 (1965); [107]*107and Jennings v. Morehead City, 226 N.C. 606, 39 S.E. 2d 610 (1946).

It would be superfluous to consider the remaining assignments of error. Judgment is

Affirmed.

Judges Parker and Hedrick concur.

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

ARNOLD, Judge.

Defendant sufficiently alleged the statute of limitations as a bar to plaintiffs’ cause of action. The directed verdict for defendant was based, in part, on the grounds “that the plaintiffs’ evidence, taken in the light most favorable to them, fails to repel the bar of the Statutes of Limitation, G.S. 1-52 and/or G.S. 1-51, pleaded by the defendant in its answer, . ... ”

When defendant pleaded the statute of limitations the burden was placed on plaintiffs to show thát the action was instituted within the prescribed period. Jewel v. Price, 264 N.C. 459, 142 S.E. 2d 1 (1965). Although plaintiffs’ amended complaint contained allegations which, if true, might have been sufficient to overcome the bar of the statute of limitations, they failed to offer any evidence at trial that would repel the bar of either the five-year or three-year periods prescribed in G.S. 1-51 and G.S. 1-52.

Since the plaintiffs failed to put on evidence to meet their burden of showing that the action was brought within the prescribed periods the defendant’s motion for directed verdict was properly entered. Little v. Rose, 285 N.C. 724, 208 S.E. 2d 666 (1974); Fulp v. Fulp, 264 N.C. 20, 140 S.E. 2d 708 (1965); [107]*107and Jennings v. Morehead City, 226 N.C. 606, 39 S.E. 2d 610 (1946).

It would be superfluous to consider the remaining assignments of error. Judgment is

Affirmed.

Judges Parker and Hedrick concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 S.E.2d 170, 30 N.C. App. 104, 1976 N.C. App. LEXIS 2157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poore-v-norfolk-southern-railway-ncctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack