¶1Note — The case of Sarel, adm’r v. Wine, 3 East 408, fully supports the opinion of Judge Ashe. Vide also, 2 Sand 63, a note b. 1 Chit. Plead. 204-5. 2 Chit. Plead. 96. But see Bank of Newbern v. Sneed, 3 Hawks, 500. As to the point of the new trial, Vide Allen v. Jordan, 2 Hay. 332. Jones v. Zollicofer, 2 Hawks, 492. Smith v. Shepbard, 1 Dev. 461.
2 N.C. 18
Billews v. Bogan
Superior Court of North Carolina
Decided March 15, 1791
Superior Court of North Carolina · decided 1791-03-15
In this case, the debt bad accrued above three years before the commencement of the action, hut there was an acknowledgment of the note having been executed within three years : and per Wiliiams, on a motion for 'a' new trial, that is sufficient to prevent the bar by the the sia-tute, as well in the case of an executor as of the party himself who made the contract. He relied upon Salk. 29. PI. ¡9. Adopted by S Bac. 517. L. Ev- 181. 1 Morg. Ess.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1791-03-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1842
5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →