{
  "id": 8653392,
  "name": "E. W. STUBBS v. W. H. MOTZ et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stubbs v. Motz",
  "decision_date": "1893-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "458",
  "last_page": "459",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "113 N.C. 458"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "101 N. C., 374",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650666
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "377"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/101/0374-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 220,
    "char_count": 3561,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.544,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.238640789117798e-07,
      "percentile": 0.779867281837667
    },
    "sha256": "8fd2a67a669947fb8b791ed38b9221ff8c0d1ea48d52812f487b084c2d1d3478",
    "simhash": "1:3b13d603122296d0",
    "word_count": 620
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:27:11.999452+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. W. STUBBS v. W. H. MOTZ et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.:\nThis action was begun 20th March, 1885, to correct errors alleged to have been made by mutual mistake, of the parties in a settlement had between them 27th October, 1881. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations. The plaintiff did not, in his complaint nor by replication, aver that the discovery of the mistake was within three years next before the commencement of the action. The Court thereupon excluded evidence offered to prove such fact, and held, upon the face of the pleadings, that the action was barred, and instructed the .jury to find the issue in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff excepted, and this is the sole question presented by the appeal.\nThe Code, \u00a7 155 (9), provides a limitation of three years for \u201can action for relief on the ground of fraud or mistake,\u201d the cause of action not tobe \u201cdeemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting such fraud or mistake.\u201d The limitation prescribed is not three years from the mistake, but from its discovery. When the date of the accruing of the cause of action appears in the complaint and the statute of limitations is pleaded, the Court can, of course, pass judgment, unless matter in avoidance is pleaded as a new promise, or the like. It is only in such cases that a replication is now required (The Code, \u00a7 248; Moore v. Garner, 101 N. C., 374, 377), though under the former practice a replication was required whenever the statute of limitations was pleaded. Wood on Limitations, 16.\nThe plea here that the \u201cplaintiff\u2019s cause of action did not accrue within three years next before the commencement of the action,\u201d devolved upon the plaintiff the burden of proving that it did. Moore v. Garner, supra. As the date of the discovery of the mistake does not appear in the complaint, the plaintiff should have been allowed to prove, if he could, that it was within three years before this action was begun.\nWe note that the defendant\u2019s plea is not strictly accurate, as he pleads that the cause of action \u201carose\u201d more than three years before suit brought. Under the liberal system of pleading now in force, he has the benefit of meaning that it did not \u201caccrue\u201d within three years. The Code, \u00a7260.\nNew Trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. 1). W. Robinson, for plaintiff (appellant).",
      "No counsel, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. W. STUBBS v. W. H. MOTZ et al.\nStatute of Limitations \u2014 Practice\u2014Pleading.\n1. The limitation for the commencement of actions prescribed by section 155 (9) is three years from the discovery of the mistake, and not from the date of the mistake.\n2. Under the present practice, a replication to the plea of the statute of limitations is necessary only when matter in avoidance is pleaded.\n3. Where, in an action brought to correct a mutual mistake in a settlement of .accounts, the defendant pleaded the statute of limitations, and it did not appear in the complaint that the mistake was discovered more than three years before suit brought, the plaintiff should have been permitted to prove, if he could, that such discovery was within three years before the commencement of the action.\n4. A plea that a cause of action did not \u201carise\u201d within the time prescribed by the statute for the commencement of an action, while not strictly accurate, will be construed under the liberal system of pleading in force under section 260 of The Code, to mean that it did not \u201caccrue\u201d within that time.\nCivil ACTION, tried at Spring Term, 1893, of Lincoln Superior Court, before Armfield, J., and a jury.\nThe facts are stated in the opinion of Associate Justice Clark.\nMr. 1). W. Robinson, for plaintiff (appellant).\nNo counsel, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0458-01",
  "first_page_order": 486,
  "last_page_order": 487
}