Tarkinton v. . Hassell

27 N.C. 359

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: June 5, 1845
• Status: Published

Opinion

Daniel, J.

If the defendant’s testator had not made the promise to pay and settle the debt, in case the mistake could be pointed out to him, the plaintiff could not have recovered, but would have been driven to the high sheriff for satisfaction, for an injury done by his deputy in the execution of his office. The mistake or negligence was made to appear; and there was an express promise by the testator, on that event, to settle and pay the debt. The action is brought on this promise, and the consideration to sustain it is, the plaintiff’s money then in the party’s hands, and that the testator then became discharged from the high sheriff for the same debt. The promise did not remove the bar of the statute of limitations, as the judge supposed ; for no bar had ever been created by force of the statute. The judgment must be affirmed.

. Pee. Curiam, Judgment affirmed.