Opinion

Richlands Supply Co. v. Banks

  • 205 N.C. 343
  • 171 S.E. 358
  • 1933 N.C. LEXIS 551
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Filed
Nov 1, 1933
Status
Published
Author
Stacy
On the bench
Stacy
Cited by
5 cases
Authority
More cited than 71.9%

The opinion

Stacy, C. J.

That the plaintiff’s cause of action is not “to recover a balance due upon a mutual, open and current account, where there have

*345

been reciprocal demands between tbe parties,” etc., as contemplated by C. S., 421, may bo conceded from a consideration of tbe decisions dealing with tbis section.

Brock v. Franck,

194 N. C., 346 , 139 S. E., 696 ;

McKinnie Bros. v. Wester,

188 N. C., 514 , 125 S. E., 1 ;

Hollingsworth v. Allen,

176 N. C., 629 , 97 S. E., 625 ;

Green v. Caldcleugh,

18 N. C., 320 .

But while tbe plaintiff’s entire account may not be saved by tbe provisions of C. S., 421 from tbe bar of tbe tbree-year statute of limitations, it does not follow tbat tbe whole account is thereby barred. TJnder tbe principle announced in

Phillips v. Penland,

196 N. C., 425 , 147 S. E., 731 ,

Wood v. Wood,

186 N. C., 559 , 120 S. E., 194 ,

Alley v. Rogers,

170 N. C., 538 , 87 S. E., 326 , and others of like import, it would seem tbat plaintiff is entitled to recover for all purchases made within three years next immediately preceding tbe cash payment of $70.00 on 7 December, 1929, less any payments by tbe defendant during said period. Tbe effect of tbis payment on 7 December was to stop tbe running of tbe statute of limitations against all items not then barred, and to fix a new

terminus a quo

from which tbe statute would start to run anew.

Supply Co. v. Dowd,

146 N. C., 191 , 59 S. E., 685 . Tbe payment was an acknowledgment of tbe debt.

We do not understand tbat tbe account current, for such it is

(Kimboll v. Person,

3 N. C., 394 ), became an account stated at tbe end of each year, though perhaps tbis might be inferred from tbe dealings between tbe parties.

Stokes v. Taylor,

104 N. C., 394 , 10 S. E., 566 ;

O’Hanlon Co. v. Jess,

58 Mont., 415 , 193 Pac., 65 , 14 A. L. R., 237, and note. However, such is not tbe contention of tbe plaintiff, and we omit any consideration of tbis view of tbe matter.

Brown & M. Co. v. Gise,

14 N. M., 282, 91 Pac., 716 ; Note 14, A. L. R., 240.

There was error in instructing tbe jury tbat plaintiff’s entire claim is barred by tbe tbree-year statute of limitations.

New trial.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.