majority"> Seawell, J.

Upon a motion to nonsuit, the evidence must be taken in the most favorable light to the plaintiff (Smith v. Coach Line, 191 N. C., 589, 132 S. E., 567, and cases cited), and the above statement of plaintiff’s evidence is made upon that principle. ¥e do not deem it necessary, for the purpose of decision, to deal with the rebutting evidence. That is a matter for the jury.

There seemed some confusion in the argument of this case as to whether plaintiff’s cause of action must be considered as arising out of malicious prosecution or malicious abuse of process; and it was strongly urged upon the Court that plaintiff was insisting here upon the latter view, whereas, in the court below, he depended on the former, thus changing the theory of the case between the trial and review in the appellate court. These refinements do not concern us at this stage of the case. We do not see how a choice either way in technical nomenclature could shorten the arm of the Court in its attempt to reach justice between the parties. There is sufficient in the complaint and in the evidence to be submitted to the jury, however the alleged mistreatment of the plaintiff may be legally tagged, growing out of his first prosecution, and also sufficient, we think, in connection with his alleged unlawful imprisonment in the State asylum for the insane.

The statute of limitations cannot be successfully invoked against the first suggested cause of action, which clearly accrued within the three years prior to the issuing of summons in this case. C. S., 441 (5).

As to the liability of the defendant growing out of the alleged detention of the plaintiff in the State- Hospital, it was argued that there was *333 no evidence to connect him with the second detention. "With this we do not agree. Passing, then, to the application of the statute of limitations to this cause of action, we find that the plaintiff was discharged as sane 29 July, 1937, and this action was begun 20 July, 1938. The year had not elapsed since his discharge. C. S., 443 (3). Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the defendant during this period had managed to deprive the plaintiff of his legal status as a sane person and is estopped from pleading the statute of limitations for that period of time. Daniel v. Comrs. of Edgecombe, 74 N. C., 494; Haymore v. Comrs., 85 N. C., 268; Whitehurst v. Dey, 90 N. C., 542. He cannot be permitted to take advantage .of his own wrong, and as to him the plaintiff was non sui juris and his rights unaffected by the statute. C. S., 407 (2).

The judgment of the court below is

Reversed.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress