Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina

Bullock v. . Bullock

14 N.C. 260

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction
North Carolina
Date
1831-12-05
Topic
general

Ruepin, Judge. The court is precluded from considering the judge’s charge by the verdjet on the general issue. It is found by the jury that the defendant’s testator did not assume ; which puts the other issue, on the statute of limitations, and the instructions of the Superior Court on it out of the question. As the existence of the debt is negatived, the judgment must of course be affirmed: To this Morisey v. Bunting, (ante 1 vol. 3,) besides other cases, is a direct authority.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Bullock v. . Bullock. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion
BULLOCKv. BULLOCK,14 N.C. 260(1831)
BENJAMIN BULLOCK v. EDWARD BULLOCK, EXECUTOR OF
MICAJAH BULLOCK.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
(December Term, 1831.)
1. Wherenon assumpsitand thestatute of limitationsare pleaded, and the jury find the general issue for the defendant, this Court will not examine the charge of the judge on the plea of the statute.

2. The case ofMorisey v. Bunting,12 N.C. 3, approved.
THIS was an action ofassumpsit, tried at GRANVILLE, on the last circuit, beforeNorwood, J.
Pleas —general issueand thestatute of limitations. The plaintiff excepted to the charge of the judge upon the plea of the statute of limitations. The jury returned the following verdict: "That the defendant's testator did not assume." Upon this verdict judgment was rendered for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed.
Devereux for plaintiff.No counsel for defendant.
RUFFIN, J.
The Court is precluded from considering the judge's charge by the verdict on the general issue. It is found by the jury that the defendant's testator did not assume, which puts the other issue, on the statute of limitations, and the instructions of the Superior Court on it, out of the question. As the existence of the debt is negatived, the judgment must of course be affirmed. To this,Morisey v. Bunting,12 N.C. 3, besides other cases, is a direct authority.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.Cited: Mastin v. Waugh,19 N.C. 518;Cole v. Cole,23 N.C. 462;Doubv. Hauser,29 N.C. 169;Hall v. Woodside,30 N.C. 120;Munroe v.Stutts,31 N.C. 52.Page 222

(261)