{
  "id": 8611035,
  "name": "CITIZENS SAVING AND LOAN COMPANY v. GEORGIA C. WARREN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Citizens Saving & Loan Co. v. Warren",
  "decision_date": "1933-01-25",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "50",
  "last_page": "52",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 N.C. 50"
    }
  ],
  "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": "152 S. E., 794",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 N. C., 596",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8615777
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/198/0596-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 S. E., 449",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 N. C., 767",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8620332
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/198/0767-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 S. E., 899",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 N. C., 395",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11254082
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/174/0395-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 S. E., 789",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 N. C., 632",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11255077
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/172/0632-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 S. E., 881",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "128 N. C., 243",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659549
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/128/0243-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 S. E., 266",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 N. C., 235",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8604454
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/198/0235-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 S. E., 589",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 N. C., 483",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630233
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/195/0483-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 S. E., 32",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 N. C., 517",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657075
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/183/0517-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 S. E., 310",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 N. C., 739",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627813
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/201/0739-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 S. E., 341",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 N. C., 515",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660652
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/170/0515-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 N. C., 233",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276687
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/13/0233-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 N. C., 63",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11960716
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/3/0063-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 309,
    "char_count": 4628,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.47,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0610090016176525e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5571100863409411
    },
    "sha256": "019700786aecea8e0443ed6680afcc3727ebf170a2500e6abd98206e8f284e6c",
    "simhash": "1:ba614f838669f04c",
    "word_count": 812
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:28.108315+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CITIZENS SAVING AND LOAN COMPANY v. GEORGIA C. WARREN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, 0. J.,\nafter stating the case: The correctness of the ruling, from which defendant appeals, depends on whether the present proceeding is a new action or a continuation of the old one; for, if it be the same suit, the condition upon which the verdict was set aside at the May Term, 1931, still binds; otherwise not.\nIn those cases where the plaintiff seeks to use the original action to repel the bar of the statute, expressions may be found tending to support the theory of a guasi-continuous action. Anonymous, 3 N. C., 63. \u201cIn legal contemplation both make but one\u201d \u2014 Ruffin, J., in Morrison v. Connelly, 13 N. C., 233. \u201cA nonsuit \u2018is but like the blowing out of a candle, which a man at his own pleasure may light again\u2019 \u201d \u2014 Walker, J., in Grimes v. Andrews, 170 N. C., 515, 87 S. E., 341.\nBut the statute denominates the first proceeding the \u201coriginal action,\u201d and the second a \u201cnew action.\u201d C. S., 415; Cooper v. Crisco, 201 N. C., 739, 161 S. E., 310. Indeed, in certain instances, tbe costs in the \u201coriginal action\u201d must be paid, thus removing it from the docket, before commencing the \u201cnew suit.\u201d Rankin v. Oates, 183 N. C., 517, 112 S. E., 32.\nUndoubtedly, the actions are different, while the causes of action are the same. Cooper v. Crisco, supra. \u201cThe same candle blown out and lighted again.\u201d Motsinger v. Hauser, 195 N. C., 483, 142 S. E., 589. It is upon the theory of two actions to enforce the same cause of action that the principle of res judicata is founded. Hampton v. Spinning Co., 198 N. C., 235, 151 S. E., 266. The statute authorizes the commencement of a \u201cnew action\u201d to enforce the same cause of action which was set up in the \u201coriginal action.\u201d Woodcock v. Bostic, 128 N. C., 243, 38 S. E., 881. A fresh action, after nonsuit, for the same cause. Bradshaw v. Bank, 172 N. C., 632, 90 S. E., 789. Identity of causes in both actions is essential to the applicability of the statute. Quelch v. Futch, 174 N. C., 395, 93 S. E., 899.\nThe order striking out the defendant\u2019s plea of the statute of limitations affects a substantial right, and is therefore appealable. Ellis v. Ellis, 198 N. C., 767, 153 S. E., 449; Hosiery Mill v. Hosiery Mills, 198 N. C., 596, 152 S. E., 794.\nError.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, 0. J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. B. Justice for plaintiff.",
      "U. G. J ones and Broclc Barhley for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CITIZENS SAVING AND LOAN COMPANY v. GEORGIA C. WARREN.\n(Filed 25 January, 1933.)\n1. Estoppel B a \u2014 Record agreement not to plead statute of limitations held not to apx>ly to second suit instituted after nonsuit.\nA verdict in plaintiff\u2019s favor was set aside by consent of the parties upon condition that the defendant would withdraw his plea of the statute of limitations. Upon the second trial a nonsuit was entered. Within a year the present suit was instituted under the provisions of C. S., 415, and the defendant set up the plea of the statute of limitations: Held,, the agreement not to plead the statute of limitations does not apply to the present suit, the bringing of a suit after nonsuit constituting a different action though the causes of action are the same, and an order striking out the plea of the statute of limitations is error.\n2. Appeal and Error A d\u2014\nAn order striking out defendant\u2019s plea of the statute of limitations affects a substantial right and is appealable.\nAppeal by defendant from Finley, J., at July Term, 1932, of Meok-LENBURG.\nCivil action to recover premiums alleged to be due on a number of fire insurance policies.\nTbe appeal arises on plaintiff\u2019s motion to strike out defendant\u2019s plea of tbe statute of limitations.\nTbe facts are these:\nSuits were instituted against defendant and her husband which were consolidated for trial at May Term, 1931, resulted in verdict for plaintiff, and the following judgment entered:\n\u201cBy consent of all parties \u2014 counsel for the plaintiff and defendants\u2014 the verdict is set aside and a new trial ordered, conditioned upon defendants agreeing to withdraw their plea of three-year statute of limitations set up in their answers.\u201d\nThereafter, the eases were again tried \u2014 the pleas of the statute of limitations having been withdrawn \u2014 and a judgment of nonsuit entered at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence as to the feme defendant. \u2022\nWithin a year after such nonsuit, the present action was instituted as permitted by C. S., 415. The defendant again pleaded, in bar of the plaintiff\u2019s right to recover, the three-year statute of limitations.\nMotion by plaintiff to strike out defendant\u2019s plea of the statute of limitations, because in breach of the condition upon which the verdict rendered at the May Term, 1931, was set aside; motion allowed, and defendant appeals.\nA. B. Justice for plaintiff.\nU. G. J ones and Broclc Barhley for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0050-01",
  "first_page_order": 116,
  "last_page_order": 118
}