Case ID: nc_3/html/0063-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anonymous.
    
    ■npHE act of limitations had run about eighteen months, then ■*’ the plaintiff sues and his action is continued in court about 4 years, and then he is nonsuited, and upwards of 12 months after that he renews his action, and the defendant pleads the act of limitations»
   Per curiam.

Haywood and Stone justices.

If a suit be instituted before the three years are expired, and there is a non-suit after the three years, the plaintiff may sue again within 12 months, and then only the time elapsed before the first action, shall be counted % But then a doubt was conceived, whether, if the action be commenced after 12 months from the nonsuit, the time between the commencement of the first action and the non-suit shall be counted, or only the time before the commencement jai the first action,'and the time after the nonsuit and before the commencement of the second action?

Haywood., Justice.»- — If after the nonsuit a new action be com - menced in a reasonable time, that time which intervened durir.g the pendency of the first action shall not be counted, because the second suit being commenced with all proper diligence is looked upon to be quasi a continuance of the farmer but if it be nor commenced in a reasonable time, it will not be considered as a continuance of the former, and then the former being an ineffectual one shall not be regarded at all, and consequently the time elapsed during its pendency shall be counted. The reasonable time I speak of is ascertained by the equity of the act itself, sec. 6, to be one year.

Stone, Justice. — I am net satisfied, but that the time elapsed during the pendency of the former action should be rejected and then the plaintiff is not barred.

Sic adjournatur.—Vide Str. 907, 3 Term. 664.