Case ID: nc_3/html/0129-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      T^ER curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sweat vs. Arrington, Administrator of Armstrong.
    
   T^ER curiam.

Johnston, Judge

In 1783, Armstrong drew -*• the pay of the plaintiff, a soldier, who lived (near the place where the commissioners sat) for five or six years afterwards, and never made application in his lifetime.

I am of opinion the act of limitations began to run from the time of the accruing of the action, and that was immediately after drawing the money.

It is said, however, that the drawing was fraudulent, and that is a circumstance which will impede the running of the statute. Supposing it to be a fraud, which however there is no evidence of; then the act will not ran but from the time of its discovery : and when was that ? Certainly from the publication of the lists made out pursuant to the act of 1792. It was some time about the beginning of the year 1794 when the printed lists were deposited in the office of each county court clerk i this list stated the name of each soldier, the amount of his account settled, with the commissioners, and by whom the money and certificates were drawn. The act of 1792 was a,; public law, and all persons concerned were bound to take notice of it, and of the list published in pursuance of it: Consequently, the plaintiff as well as others concerned, had notice from the beginning of the year 1794, who had drawn his pay; and not having sued till the year 1798, more than three years are elapsed from, the time of the discovery — And so he is barred.

Verdict and judgment accordingly.