Case ID: scl_2/html/0194-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David Hopkins against The Administrators of M‘Pherson.
    
      Columbia,
    
    1798.
    one adimms-trator where several are -appointee! and qualified to fteintosSie’s and void, and ■ront the ^statute of limitations from running against a debt. A second writ tl?elnadminis-a^discontUm-first6 will not oure the de-feet where the statute has run before the lodging of the writ in the sheriffs office.
    THIS was an action of assumpsit. Plea non assumpsit infra quatuor annos. J 2
    Verdict for defendants under the direction of the court.
   Motion for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection, The circumstances of this case, as reported, were these t writ was flrst taken out against one of the administrators alone, when several had been appointed and qualified ; the 7 ... . plaintiff upon discovering his mistake, discontinued his ac-1 r . . . tion and commenced another one against all the admxnis-trators ; the first writ was in time to bar the statute of limitations, but the second was lodged after the statute had run oui against the debt; so that the only question was, whe-the lodging of the first writ had taken the case out of ° ° the statute or not? The court was unanimous, that the first . , being void, it gave no right whatever to the plaintiff ; and when the second writ (which w~s valid) issued9 the statute of limitations had run out and barred the recovery.

Rule for new trial dischargecL

Present~ BuRKE~ Gi~mui~ ~