Court Opinion

ID: 6537493
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:12:56.260686+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:55:42.370453
License: Public Domain

By ike Court, Lacy, J. The statute requires that a non-resident plaintiff shall, before he institutes his suit, cause an obligation to be filed; and it surely requires no argument, to show that an obligation must be sealed. The instrument filed' in this case, is not sealed, and, therefore, deficient in one of its most important requisites. The term obligation, as here used, must be taken in its common-law definition. The statutes of this State make no difference between sealed and unsealed instruments, as regards their evidence and consideration. The only material difference that we are aware of, arises upon the statute of limitations; unsealed instruments being barred in three years from the time the cause of action arises; sealqd instruments, in five years. The motion to dismiss ought to have been sustained. Judgment reversed.