{
  "id": 8683672,
  "name": "O. L. HALL v. L. GIBBS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hall v. Gibbs",
  "decision_date": "1882-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "4",
  "last_page": "6",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "87 N.C. 4"
    }
  ],
  "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": "1 Jones Eq., 18",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones Eq.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683651
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/54/0018-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Jones Eq., 18",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones Eq.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683651
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/54/0018-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 211,
    "char_count": 2651,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.483,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.056566882320558e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8563227045283335
    },
    "sha256": "10c47d999d5f8c266e5c4783b6e3d74ed1bda41d03b4e933839d49a9d15efb4c",
    "simhash": "1:e0f2793670c08a50",
    "word_count": 470
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:13.738110+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "O. L. HALL v. L. GIBBS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ashe, J.\nThe opinion intimated 'by His Honor is -correct. The bond sued on matured on the 25th of January, 1868, and the cause of action then having accrued to the plaintiff, the.statute of presumptions in force previous to .the ratification of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable. C. C. P., \u00a7 16.\nThe action was not brought until 2.0th of-January, 1881, more than ten years after the right of action had accrued on this bond, and the presumption of its payment or .satisfaction had arisen within that' time. Rev. Code, ch. 65, \u00a7 18. {Act of 1826.) I-t is true this presumption may be rebutted, but there was no proof offered in rebuttal in this case. There was nothing shown on the trial to obstruct the \u2022running of the statute. The death of the plaintiff\u2019s intestate, the .obligee of the bond, .could not have .that-effect' I '. the act of 1826, which provides for the presumption of payment or satisfaction of bonds, &c., after ten years, there is no saving whatever. \u201cIt seems,\u201d as Pearson, C. J., said in Hamlin v. Mebane, 1 Jones' Eq., 18, \u201cto have been intended emphatically as a statute of repose.\u201d\nNor was its eourse suspended by th,e death of the obligee before the expiration of the ten years after the right of action accrued under section 43 of the Code, for the provisions of that section only apply to the limitations prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure.\nNo- error. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ashe, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Green & Stevenson, for plaintiff.",
      "No counsel for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "O. L. HALL v. L. GIBBS.\nStatute of Limitations.\nThe presumption o\u00ed payment of a bond arises after ten years from.the time the right, of notion accrues. Itev. Code, eh. 6o, \u00a7 IS. (The provisions of section 43'of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to-this c\u00e1se.)\n(Hamlin v. Mebane, 1 Jones Eq., 18, cited and approved.)\nCivil AotioN tried at Spring Term, 1882, of Oabteret -'Superior Court, before Gilmer, J.\nThis action is founded on a sealed note executed by defendant to plaintiff\u2019s intestate on the 24th of January, 1866, payable two years after date, and upon which a credit of 3\u00a1j>85.46 was endorsed on the 14th of September, 1869.\nThe defence set up was, that the bond was presumed to \u2022have been paid by lapse of time,-and that it had in fact been paid to said intestate in goods.\nThe action was commenced on the 20th of January, 1881.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s intestate died on the 17th of April, -1875, and there was no administration on the \u00e9state until the appointment of the plaintiff on the 16th of December, 1880.\nOn the trial the judge intimated that the bond was presumed to be paid, and in deference to that opinion the .plaintiff submitted to a nonsuit and appealed.\nMessrs. Green & Stevenson, for plaintiff.\nNo counsel for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0004-01",
  "first_page_order": 20,
  "last_page_order": 22
}