Court Opinion

ID: 9810010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:38:20.58699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:19.673852
License: Public Domain

Clark, J.,
concurring in result: The Code, Section 172, renders invalid a new promise to take a case out of the bar of the Statute of Limitations unless the new promise is in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith. *248It has been held, however, that where a creditor has delayed to bring action at the request of the debtor, who promised to pay the debt and not avail himself of the plea of the Statute, it would be against equity and good conscience to permit him to plead it and that the creditor can bring his action within the statutory time after such promise and request for delay. Joyner v. Massey, 97 N. C., 148; Barcroft v. Roberts, 91 N. C., 363; Haymore v. Commissioners, 85 N. C., 268; Daniel v. Commissioners, 74 N. C., 494. It is essential, however, not only that there shall be a new promise and a request for delay, but there must be a promise not to plead the Statute if delay is given. Hill v. Hilliard, 103 N. C., 34. In the present case, the jury found that state of facts and the action was begun within three years after the indulgence granted at the request of the debtor and his promise not to plead the Statute.