Court Opinion

ID: 3646570
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 06:02:35.026881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:00:39.993580
License: Public Domain

I am not 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.
NOTE — See Pearse v. House, post, 386, where the judge seemed inclined to think that it should be counted, which the editor thinks is now the settled construction of the statute.
Cited: Skillington v. Allison, 9 N.C. 348; Bradshaw v. Bank,172 N.C. 634. *Page 83 
(65)