TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Robertson v. Pickrell

Henry D. Robertson v. John F. Pickrell.

Robertson v. Pickrell, 77 N.C. 302 (1877)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 5, 1877
Judges
Reads
Citations
77 N.C. 302
Cited by 5
Headnotes
Statute of Limitations. The statute of limitations begins to run from the time that the cause of action accrues; Therefore, where the plaintiff made a contract with the defendant to do certain work which was “to be measured, estimated and paid for monthly Held, that the statute began to run at the end'of' each month.
Summary
' Civil AotioN, tried at Spring Term, 1877, of Halifax Superior Court, before Buxton, J. The defendant contracted to build the Williamston and Tarhoro Railroad, and employed the plaintiff, who performed labor and furnished materials in the construction of the same under a contract with the defendant. This action was-brought on the 4th of October, 1873, to recover the amount-due, and-was referred to Thos. N. Hill, Esq., who submitted a report deciding the issues in favor of the plaintiff and giving judgment for the sum demanded: The Referee stated among other things, that no evidence of the amount and price of work done each month by the plaintiff was submitted to him, except the estimate for February 1,1870, calling for $1103.36, and the estimate for July 1, 1870, calling-for $1696.57. As conclusions of law he found that the plea-of the statute of limitations was not available as a defence-to this action, inasmuch as the contract between the parties» was entire,, and that the statute began to run only from the time the work was completed, which was January 1, 1871. To this report the defendant filed several exceptions, but relied on the third and fourth, to wit; 3. For that the Referee finds as a conclusion of law that said alleged contract was entire, and not divisible, whereas the evidence was that the work was to be measured, estimated and paid for month-]y; 4. Eor that the Referee finds that the plaintiff is not barred by the statute of limitations. His Honor overruled the exceptions and sustained the report. Judgment. Appeal by defendant.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Reads

Reads J.

It is settled that where there is a running account, all on one side, the statute of limitations begins to run on each item from its date ; but where there are mutual accounts, the statute begins to run only from the last dealing-between the parties. In regard to other matters the rule is,, that the statute begins to run from the time when the cause of action accrued.

¥e are of the opinion that in this case a cause of action accrued to the plaintiff at the end of each month for the-amount due for that month, and that three years from that’ date it was barred. ■ - It follows that only such amount is now due the plaintiff, as accrued within three years immediately preceding the commencement of the action.

.We have no data by which, to fix the amount, else we would enter judgment her'e. We must therefore declare that there is error, and remand the case to be proceeded in as the parties may be advised.

Per CuriaM. Reversed and remanded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →
1903: 11914: 11927: 11965: 11977: 119032026peak 1903 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Security National Bank of Greensboro v. Educators Mutual Life Insurance143 S.E.2d 270 (N.C. 1965)
  2. Washington Loan & Trust Co. v. Darling21 App. D.C. 132 (D.C. Cir. 1903)
  3. Stark Bros. v. Gooding162 S.W. 333 (Mo. Ct. App. 1914)
  4. Brock v. Franck139 S.E. 696 (N.C. 1927)
  5. Whitley's Electric Service, Inc. v. Sherrod232 S.E.2d 223 (N.C. Ct. App. 1977)

Most recent

  1. Whitley's Electric Service, Inc. v. Sherrod232 S.E.2d 223 (N.C. Ct. App. 1977)
  2. Security National Bank of Greensboro v. Educators Mutual Life Insurance143 S.E.2d 270 (N.C. 1965)
  3. Brock v. Franck139 S.E. 696 (N.C. 1927)
  4. Stark Bros. v. Gooding162 S.W. 333 (Mo. Ct. App. 1914)
  5. Washington Loan & Trust Co. v. Darling21 App. D.C. 132 (D.C. Cir. 1903)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list