Opinion
(October Term, 1796.)
Where the act of limitations begins to run against a feme sole, her marrying will not suspend its operation.
SPECIAL VERDICT, in which the question was stated to be whether a feme sole against whom the act of limitations had begun to run could by marrying suspend the operation thereof, or whether it would run on, notwithstanding the coverture.
This is a plain question. It is clear law when the act once begins to run, no incapacity to sue, as coverture or the like, intervening before the three years are completed, will prevent its running on so as to form a bar.
Mr. Moore, however, urged that there never had been any decision in any court to that effect, either in England or here. He said such an opinion was intimated at Wilmington, at the last term, by HAYWOOD, J., alone on the bench. That he had heard of such a doctrine before, at the time Mr. Iredell was at the bar, and had been furnished by him with a list of authorities upon which Mr. Iredell had formed such an opinion; but upon examining them attentively, they are found to be dictums, grounded on the case of Touch v. __________ , Plowden, 368, which was a case adjudged upon the statute of fines.
After the opinion I gave at Wilmington, last spring, I searched the authorities, when I went home, with great diligence. Many of the instances are but dictums, but everywhere it seems to be held as law, and not to be disputed where the point occurs. It is so held in 4 Term, 310, and 306, in the notes. Wils., 134, was decided upon that principle, and 1 Strange, 556. I am very sure that the law is so, but let the case lie over till tomorrow, that Mr. Moore may have time to look into authorities.
WILLIAMS, J., assented.
Next morning, the Court having looked into authorities, mentioned the case again, and asked the counsel whether they would argue it; and they declining an argument, the Court gave judgment for the defendant.
See Andrews v. Mulford, ante, 311.
Cited: Copeland v. Collins, 122 N.C. 622; Dobbins v. Dobbins, 141 N.C. 219.
(417)