{ "id": 11273577, "name": "RACHEL E. WHITE, Admx., v. A. J. SCOTT", "name_abbreviation": "White v. Scott", "decision_date": "1919-12-10", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "637", "last_page": "639", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "178 N.C. 637" } ], "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": "106 N. C., 481", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651662 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/106/0481-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 N. C., 159", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8649469 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/103/0159-01" ] }, { "cite": "135 N. C., 187", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "122 N. C., 326", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659069 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/122/0326-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 N. C., 358", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651359 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/111/0358-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 N. C., 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8649542 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/108/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 N. C., 251", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651083 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/111/0251-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 N. C., 269", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652928 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/121/0269-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 393, "char_count": 5680, "ocr_confidence": 0.466, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.621887471290392e-08, "percentile": 0.2901700060505458 }, "sha256": "57c8a75620dd750806c6610edcd88697f23c8ebb06deb2be5155c6778fa79ef3", "simhash": "1:2a6aec063e4936a3", "word_count": 1036 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:32:08.818827+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "RACHEL E. WHITE, Admx., v. A. J. SCOTT." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Walker, J.,\nafter stating the relevant facts as above: The defendant -executed the three notes to the plaintiff as far back as the years 1896 \u2022 and 1897, so that they are barred by the statute of limitations, unless the plaintiff\u2019s intestate was insane at the time the cause of action upon the notes accrued, for that is the language of the statute, as will appear by this reproduction of it: \u201cNo person shall avail himself of a disability, \u25a0unless it existed when his right of action accrued.\u201d Code of 1883, sec. 169; Eevisal of 1905, sec. 169. According to the evidence in this case, Mrs. Scott\u2019s illness occurred in the year 1909, and, as it was subsequent to the accrual of the cause of action, it did not interrupt the operation \u2022 of the statute, if the full time had not elapsed before her illness commenced. Eller v. Church, 121 N. C., 269; Asbury v. Fair, 111 N. C., 251. It is familiar learning that when the statute once begins to run no disability will stop it. Kennedy v. Cromwell, 108 N. C., 1; Ervin v. Broohs, 111 N. C., 358; Causey v. Snow, 122 N. C., 326; Self v. Shugart, 135 N. C., 187. \"When it starts to run during the lifetime of the ancestor, it does not stop, even though the heir is under disability at the death \u25a0 of the former, and at the time of descent cast. Chancey v. Powell, 103 N. C., 159; Frederick v. Williams, ib., 189; Wood on Limitations, 11; Pearce v. House, term report, 722. It must appear that disability existed when the right of action accrued. Gudger v. R. R., 106 N. C., 481. This being so, and all the evidence showing that the illness of Mrs. Scott \u25a0 occurred long after the accrual of the cause of action on the several notes \u2014 and there being no evidence, as we think, to the contrary \u2014 the court was right in dismissing the action.\nThe contention as to the trust relation between the defendant and'the intestate is entirely without any merit. There is no sufficient' evidence vto' sustain any such view with reference to these notes. The plaintiff was at the perfect liberty to sue upon them without making any demand.\nThere is no error in the proceedings of the court.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Walker, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "J. E. Crowell and H. 8. Williams for plaintiff.", "Maness & Amf\u00edelct and L. T. Hartsell for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "RACHEL E. WHITE, Admx., v. A. J. SCOTT.\n(Filed 10 December, 1919.)\nLimitation of Actions \u2014 Cause Accrued \u2014 Mental Incapacity \u2014 Trusts\u2014Evidence.\nThe statute of limitations on a note begins to run from the time the cause of action, thereon accrues, Rev., 169, and when it has once commenced, it is not suspended because of the payee\u2019s mental incapacity thereafter ; and in this case it is Held, that there was no evidence of a trust relation between the parties that would affect the operation of the statute,, or require a demand for payment by the payee\u2019s administrator.\nCivil actioN, tried before Harding, J., at April Term, 1919, of' Cabaeeus.\nPlaintiff alleged tbat defendant had executed to her intestate, Mary J.. Scott, three notes, one for $250, on 14 March, 1896; one for $50, on 3 April, 1897; and the remaining one for $320, on 9 July, 1896, all of' them due one day after date, with interest from date. On the first note-the last payment was made on .13 March, 1899; on the second on-3 April, 1899, and on the third on 9 July, 1898, and there were no later-payments of any kind. Mrs. Scott died on 19 June, 1916. This action was commenced on 9 June, 1917. The payments were entered as credits-on the notes.\nThe defendant admitted the due execution of the notes; denied the date-of payment on the third note; alleged that a large part of the notes was intended as a gift from his mother, to whom the notes were payable, and: pleaded the statute of limitation of ten years.\nThe plaintiff -replied as to the statute that Mrs. Scott was non compos-mentis for some time after an illness, though there was evidence that she had lucid intervals and her mental aberration was not continuous.. The plaintiff\u2019s witness, W. L. Wineeoff, testified:\n\u201cI had known Mary J. Scott a long number of years. I did not know of her selling real estate until what she said. She told me she had. This was about 1900, I reckon. I do not mind whether it was 1900 or-1905. She told me she had sold her property to her son John. She did not tell me what she got for it. I did not ask her.\u201d Q. \u201cDid she talk like she had any sense then ?\u201d A. \u201cThat was before she had that spell of' sickness. I never saw anything wrong with her mind prior to the time-she had that spell of sickness. She was an unusually intelligent woman. She attended church regularly.\u201d Q. \u201cIn your opinion she was one of' the most intelligent ladies in that community?\u201d A. \u201cShe was very intelligent. I do not remember whether or not she told me about the fact that she had been on a trade with her daughters and bought some-of them out. I believe she told me she had bought Mr. Will Stewart\u2019s, part. I don\u2019t believe she told me about buying three-elevenths, and that ;sbe sold the whole thing to John Scott after that. She was down sick two or three weeks with pneumonia and she got over it. After she got up she was all right at times. I discovered that her mind was not all right directly after she had pneumonia; at times I saw it was not all right.\u201d Q. \u201cBut the bigger part of the time her mind was all right after -she got up from pneumonia ?\u201d A. \u201cShe appeared like it part of the time and part of the time I don\u2019t think she was.\u201d\nThe plaintiff also alleged that the defendant was agent of his mother \u25a0during the time of the transaction in regard to the notes.\nThe court granted a motion of the defendant to nonsuit the plaintiff, \u25a0\u2022\u25a0\u2022and judgment was entered accordingly. Plaintiff appealed.\nJ. E. Crowell and H. 8. Williams for plaintiff.\nManess & Amf\u00edelct and L. T. Hartsell for defendant." }, "file_name": "0637-01", "first_page_order": 703, "last_page_order": 705 }