{ "id": 11271011, "name": "R. H. GULLEDGE, Administrator, v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Gulledge v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.", "decision_date": "1908-10-28", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "567", "last_page": "571", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "148 N.C. 567" } ], "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": "119 U. S., 119", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "30 Minn., 386", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 8876235 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/minn/30/0386-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 Ind., 112", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "25 Ohio St., 629", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ohio St.", "case_ids": [ 44766 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ohio-st/25/0629-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 Ga., 621", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga.", "case_ids": [ 73381 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ga/83/0621-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 Md., 563", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Md.", "case_ids": [ 1850174 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/md/44/0563-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 N. Y., 344", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2229599 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ny/119/0344-01" ] }, { "cite": "126 Fed., 591", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 3844646 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f/126/0591-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 Fed., 475", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "65 Kan., 652", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Kan.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "94 N. C., 525", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651474 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/94/0525-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 N. H., 164", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.H.", "case_ids": [ 1809704 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nh/72/0164-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 N. C., 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650985 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/106/0205-01" ] }, { "cite": "131 N. C., 267", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8660429 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/131/0267-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 450, "char_count": 6624, "ocr_confidence": 0.467, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.3642322323642475e-07, "percentile": 0.7946712337282984 }, "sha256": "99fe3c16f56d9ee02496f96ba5bed54cb0f7fdbda1c2ad8f9f4f728d384d64e8", "simhash": "1:0bcbff8277a47c10", "word_count": 1164 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:17.237307+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "R. H. GULLEDGE, Administrator, v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Buown, J.\nTbe petition of tbe learned counsel for tbe plaintiff, asking us to reconsider our decision in tbis case, seems to be based upon tbe idea that we have overruled a decision in wbicb by some means tbe plaintiff bad acquired a vested right. Williams v. B. and L. Association, 131 N. C., 267.\nEor tbe reasons so clearly stated by Mr. Justice Hoke in Mason v. Nelson, at tbis term, tbe plaintiff could acquire no vested right in such an adjudication as Williams v. B. and L. Association, bad we in fact overruled it. We do not think we have modified, much less overruled it. In that case tbe Court was construing tbe usury statute of 1895 (chapter 69), containing provisions different from section 59 of the Revisal, and does not bear upon tbe question involved in tbis case. Nor have we overruled Meekins v. Railroad, 131 N. C., p. 1, in which the original action was brought within one year after death. Tbe plaintiff was nonsuited and brought his new action within twelve months after tbe nonsuit in tbe original action. Tbis Court held that section 166 of Tbe Code,- authorizing tbe new action after nonsuit, applied to all cases. The present Chief Justice, speaking for the Court, says: \u201cThis statute (Tbe Code, sec. 166) contains no exception of cases under section 1498 or of any other cases where tbe time prescribed for bringing tbe original action might not be strictly a statute of limitations.\u201d Best v. Kinston, 106 N. C., 205, is cited and approved in tbat opinion. This is one of the cases cited in our opinion in this case wherein it is held by this Court that the one-year clause in section 1498 is not a statute of limitation, but a condition annexed to the cause of action, and that the plaintiff must prove that he has commenced his action within the time required by the act..\nIn view of the great weight of authority sustaining them, we do not feel justified in overruling the well-considered decisions of this Court which we followed in deciding this case. Those cases are supported by an unbroken line of decisions in other jurisdictions. Am. and Eng. Ency. Law (2d Ed.), Yol. VIII, p. 815, cites cases from a large number of States in support of the statement in the text, that \u201cAs the statutes confer a new right of action, no explanations as to why suit was not brought within the specified time will avail, unless the statutes themselves provide a saving clause.\u201d\nAmong the recent cases to the same effect will be found Poff v. Telephone Co., 72 N. H., 164, citing Taylor v. Iron Co., 94 N. C., 525; Rodman v. Railroad, 65 Kan., 652, citing same case; Navigation Co. v. Lindstrom, 133 Fed., 475, construing the New Jersey statute; Williams v. Steamship Co., 126 Fed., 591.\nThis case last cited holds that no action based on the New York statute can be maintained after the time limited, \u201cnor is the time extended to cover the appointment of an administrator.\u201d Judge Adams says: \u201cThe language of the act is explicit: 'Such an action must be commenced within two years after the decedent\u2019s death,\u2019 and, in view of the plain language, the time to commence an action cannot be extended by construction.\u201d\nOye., Yol. XIII, p. 339, says: \u201cWhere the statute giving a right of action for death by wrongful act limits the time within which such action must be brought to a certain designated period, and contains no saving clause, an action sought to be brought after the expiration of such period is. barred, and no excuse will be recognized for such delay.\u201d\nThe text is supported by authorities from the States of Alabama, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin.\nMr. Tiffany, in his work on Peath by Wrongful Act, sec. 121, relies upon and cites the decisions of this Court in support of his text, wherein he says: \u201cThe limitation is not merely of the remedy, but is of the right of action itself,\u201d citing Taylor v. Cranberry Iron (Jo., supra, and Best v. Kinston, supra.\nIn the case of Hill v. Supervisors, 119 N. Y., 344, the Court of Appeals of New York says of this cause of action: \u201cIt must be evident that, as this action is brought under a special law and is maintainable solely by its authority, the limitation of time is so incorporated with the remedy given as to make it an integral part of it and the condition precedent to the maintenance of the action at all.\u201d See, also, Eastwood v. Kennedy, 44 Md., 563; Oshields v. Railroad, 83 Ga., 621; Pittsburg v. Hine, 25 Ohio St., 629; Hanna v. Railroad, 32 Ind., 112; Rugland v. Anderson, 30 Minn., 386, and Word on Lim., sec. 9.\nIn conclusion, we will quote from the Supreme Court of the United\u00bb States. In the Harrisburg case, 119 U. S., 119-214, it is'said: \u201cThe statutes create a new liability with the right to a suit for its enforcement, provided the suit is brought within twelve months, and not otherwise. The time within which the suit must be brought operates as a limitation of the' liability itself as created, and not of the remedy alone. It is'a condition attached to the right to sue at all. Time has been made of the essence of the right, and the right is lost if the time is disregarded. The liability and the remedy are created by the same statutes, and the limitations of the remedy are therefore to be treated as limitations of the right.\u201d\nIn deference to tbe opinion of tbe learned gentlemen wbo certify tbat they think onr d\u00e9cision was erroneous, we have given tbe matter careful consideration, and we quote some of tbe many authorities which sustain our judgment.\nPetition Dismissed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Buown, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Robinson & Gaudle, II. H. McLendon, J. A. Lockhart and J. T. Bennett for petitioner.", "J. D. Shaw and Murray Allen for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "R. H. GULLEDGE, Administrator, v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY.\n(Filed 28 October, 1908.)\n1. Revisal, Sec. 59 \u2014 Actions\u2014Negligence\u2014Killing\u2014One .Year \u2014 Condition Annexed \u2014 Limitations of\u201dActions.'\nUnder Revisal, sec. 59, giving a cause of action on account of tbe wrongful killing \u00f3f intestate to the (executor) administrator or collector of decedent, -the provision tliat suit should be brought within one.year after such death is a condition annexed, and must be proved by the plaintiff to make out a prima facie case, and is not required to be pleaded as a statute of limitation.\n2. Same \u2014 Controversy\u2014Executors and Administrators \u2014 Collectors.\nIt is no excuse for plaintiff not bringing an action under Re-visal, sec. 59, within one year, etc., to show that there was a controversy over the administration. A collector should have been appointed for the purpose of suit.\nPbtitioN to rebear tbis -case reported in 147 N. C., p. 234. , . '\nRobinson & Gaudle, II. H. McLendon, J. A. Lockhart and J. T. Bennett for petitioner.\nJ. D. Shaw and Murray Allen for defendant." }, "file_name": "0567-01", "first_page_order": 597, "last_page_order": 601 }