Taylor v. Cranberry Iron & Coal Co.

94 N.C. 525
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 5, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by49 cases

This text of 94 N.C. 525 (Taylor v. Cranberry Iron & Coal Co.) 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
Taylor v. Cranberry Iron & Coal Co., 94 N.C. 525 (N.C. 1886).

Opinion

MeejRIMON, J.

(after stating the facts). The action is brought under The Code, §1498, which provides, that “whenever the death of a person is caused by a wrongful act, neglect or default of another, such as would, if the injured party had lived, have entitled him to an action for damages therefor, the person or corporation that would have been so liable, and his or their executors, administrators, collectors or successors, shall be liable to an action for damages, to be brought within one year after such death, by the executor, administrator or collector of the decedent; and this nothwithstauding the death, and although the wrongful act, neglect or default, causing death, amount in law to a felony.”

This is not strictly a statute of limitation. 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, else the right of action will be lost. It must be *527 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.

The nature of the cause of action, when it occurred, and when this action began, plainly appeared from the complaint and summons, and as more than one year elapsed after the death, of the intestate, and before the bringing of the action, it is clear it cannot be maintained, and the judgment must therefore be affirmed.

No error. Affirmed.

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

Related

Bolick v. American Barmag Corp.
293 S.E.2d 415 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1982)
Heaslip v. Treen
318 So. 2d 95 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1975)
LaBruzza v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Insurance
207 F. Supp. 789 (E.D. Louisiana, 1962)
Sweet v. Brown
125 So. 2d 261 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1960)
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Brown
115 So. 2d 903 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1959)
Colyar v. Atlantic States Motor Lines, Inc.
56 S.E.2d 647 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949)
Stroud v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey
41 So. 2d 539 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1949)
Wilson v. Chastain
53 S.E.2d 290 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949)
McCoy v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
47 S.E.2d 532 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
Webb v. . Eggleston
46 S.E.2d 700 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
Mullins v. De Soto Securities Co.
56 F. Supp. 907 (W.D. Louisiana, 1944)
Winslow v. . Carolina Conference Association
191 S.E. 403 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
George v. Atlanta & Charlotte Airline Railway Co.
185 S.E. 431 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
Brister v. Wray-Dickinson Co.
159 So. 430 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1935)
Bigelow v. Otis
255 N.W. 270 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1934)
Curlee v. Duke Power Co.
172 S.E. 329 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Bowery v. Babbit
128 So. 801 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Tieffenbrun v. . Flannery
151 S.E. 857 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)
City of Tulsa v. McIntosh
1930 OK 71 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1930)
State Ex Rel. Stasciewicz v. Parks
129 A. 793 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 N.C. 525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-cranberry-iron-coal-co-nc-1886.