Case Name: JOHN G. RANKIN v. R. M. OATES
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1922-05-17
Citations: 183 N.C. 517
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHN G. RANKIN v. R. M. OATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 183
Pages: 517–525

Head Matter:
JOHN G. RANKIN v. R. M. OATES.
(Filed 17 May, 1922.)
1. Trials — Verdict Set Aside — Issue Reversed by Trial Judge — Courts.
Tlie trial judge has the authority to set aside the verdict of the jury as to matters in his sound discretion or as a matter of law, leaving the cause at issue, O. S., 591; but he may not change the verdict and thereupon dismiss the action as a matter of law, the exercise of such power being allowed only for want of jurisdiction or upon the ground that no cause of action has been sufficiently alleged in the complaint.
2. Limitation of Actions — Pleadings—Burden of Proof.
Where the three-year statute of limitations is pleaded in defense to an action for wrongful conversion of personal property, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that the action was brought within the time allowed from the accrual of the cause, or that otherwise it was not barred.
3. Same — Statutes—New Action — Costs—Condition Precedent.
The one-year period extended for the bringing of another action after nonsuit upon the same subject-matter, C. S., 415, is applicable only when the costs in the original action have been paid by the plaintiff before commencement of the new suit, unless the original suit was brought in forma pauperis; and where the appropriate statute has been pleaded and its time expired both before the bringing of the new action and the payment of the cost in the original one, the second action is barred though commenced within the one-year period, when the original ease has not been brought in forma paupeiñs. Bradshaw v. Bank, 172 N. C., 632, cited and distinguished.
4. Appeal and Error — Harmless Error — Courts—Reversal of Verdict — > Prejudice — New Trial.
Where the trial judge has erroneously set aside the negative finding of the jury upon the issue of the statute of limitations, and answers this issue in the affirmative and dismisses the action, and it appears on appeal that the same result would have followed as a matter of law, the error will be held as harmless, without injury to the appellant, and a new trial will not be ordered.
Clabk, O. J., dissenting.
Appeal by botb plaintiff and defendant from Bay, J., at December Term, 1921, of Gaston.
Civil action to recover damages for an alleged wrongful conversion of plaintiff’s automobile.
Upon denial of liability and issues joined, tbe jury returned tbe following verdict:
“1. Did tbe defendant wrongfully convert to bis own use tbe property of tbe plaintiff, as alleged in tbe complaint? Answer: ‘Yes.’
“2. Is tbe plaintiff’s cause of action barred by tbe statute of limitations? Answer:‘No.’
“3. What damages is tbe plaintiff entitled to recover by reason of tbe conversion of said car? Answer: ‘$1,875.’ ”
After tbe rendition of tbe verdict, bis Honor set aside tbe jury’s finding as to tbe bar of tbe statute of limitations, answered tbe second issue in tbe affirmative, as a matter of law, and thereupon rendered judgment for tbe defendant, dismissing tbe action and taxing tbe plaintiff witb tbe costs.
Botb sides appealed.
Mangum & Denny for plaintiff.
Michael SchencJc and Carpenter & Carpenter for defendant.

Opinion:
Stacy, J.
Tbe court was without authority to reverse tbe jury's finding on tbe second issue, answer it himself, and then render judgment on tbe verdict as amended. Garland v. Arrowood, 177 N. C., 373; Sprinkle v. Wellborn, 140 N. C., 163; Hemphill v. Hemphill, 99 N. C., 436. And it has been held that, after verdict, tbe same may be set aside and tbe plaintiff's suit dismissed by tbe trial court only for want of jurisdiction, or upon tbe ground that no cause of action is stated in tbe complaint. Riley v. Stone, 169 N. C., 422. A different course seems to have been pursued in Davis v. R. R., 170 N. C., 582, but there tbe question of procedure apparently was not presented for consideration.
Of course, bis Honor could have set tbe verdict aside as a matter of law or in bis discretion; and in either event tbe cause would then have stood upon tbe docket for a new trial. C. S., 591. When a verdict is set aside as a matter of law, tbe losing party may appeal, and the action of the court in this respect is subject to review. Powers v. Wilmington, 177 N. C., 361. But the rule is otherwise when the judge acts in his discretion, unless this discretion has been grossly abused and resulted in oppression, which is not likely to occur in any case. Settee v. Electric Railway, 170 N. C., 367.
But we are of opinion that the court should have directed a verdict against the plaintiff on the second issue. The defendant having set up the plea of the statute of limitations, as a bar to the plaintiff's right to recover, the burden was on the plaintiff to show that his suit was brought within three years from the time of the accrual of the cause of action, or that otherwise it was not barred. This has been the prevailing rule with us as to the burden of proof where the statute of limitations is properly pleaded. Tillery v. Lumber Co., 172 N. C., 296, and cases there cited.
Admittedly the plaintiff's alleged cause of action accrued on or about 2 May, 1914. The present suit was instituted in the Superior Court of Gaston County, 6 September, 1917, three years, four months, and four days after the alleged conversion. This was too late, unless the plaintiff has otherwise saved himself from the running of the statute.
To meet this situation, the plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that a former suit to recover the automobile in question was commenced in Henderson County on 25 May, 1914, and that said suit remained upon the Superior Court docket of said county until the May Term, 1917, when a voluntary nonsuit was taken therein. Plaintiff contends that" under C. S., 415, he is entitled to bring a second action at any time within one year after the judgment of nonsuit in the original cause. This is so, provided "the costs in the original action have been paid by the plaintiff before the commencement of the new suit, unless the original suit was brought in forma pauperisIt is admitted that the original suit here was not brought in forma pcmperis, and that the costs of said action were not paid by the plaintiff until 14 September, 1921, four years and eight days after the commencement of the new suit.
It was held in Bradshaw v. Bank, 172 N. C., 632, that the proviso in this statute does not forbid the plaintiff's bringing a second action without paying the cos.ts of the first, when not otherwise barred by the statute of limitations, but that it does annex such "as a condition to bringing the new action free from the bar of the statute, if pleaded." That is to say, if both suits are brought within three years from the date of accrual of the plaintiff's cause of action, the failure to pay the costs in the original suit will not bar the plaintiff's right to proceed in the second action. But where the pendency of the first suit and the right to bring another within a year after its dismissal is relied upon to repel the plea of the statute of limitations, the plaintiff is required to pay the costs in the original action before the commencement of the new suit, unless the first suit was brought in forma pauperis. This is the plain meaning of the words used in the statute and we are not at liberty to disregard its provisions. Summers v. R. R., 173 N. C., 398.
The correct result has been accomplished by the judgment entered below, though irregularly rendered; and as no harm can come from letting it stand, we shall affirm it. Earnhardt v. Comrs., 157 N. C., 234; Oldham v. Rieger, 145 N. C., 254. Upon the uncontroverted facts, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, and any error committed on the trial was harmless. Cherry v. Canal Co., 140 N. C., 426. "A new trial will not be granted when the action of the trial judge, even if erroneous, could by no possibility injure the appellant." Butts v. Screws, 95 N. C., 215. The judgment dismissing the action will be upheld.
On both appeals, judgment
Affirmed.