Dawson v. King

Goldsborougii, J., delivered the opinion of this Court: The principal question presented by this appeal is, whether the evidence submitted by the plaintiff to the jury at the trial of the case, removed the bar of the statute of limitations pleaded by the defendant. Two prayers were presented to the Circuit Court, one by the defendant “that the evidence in this cause, if believed by the jury, is not sufficient to take the case out of the statute of limitations” which was granted; the other by the plaintiff, enumerating in his prayer, certain items of the evidence, which, if believed by the jury, he claims, would remove the bar of the statute. The Circuit Court having granted the defendant’s prayer upon the whole evidence, the correctness of that ruling could be ascertained only by ail examination of all tbe evidence. This examination we have carefully made and are of opinion that the prayer was properly granted.

The claim made by tbe appellant upon the appellee, was for wheat seeded on the land purchased by the latter in the fall of 1852. From the evidence of S. C. Young, it appears that the appellee refused to pay the claim when presented, alleging that he had bought the wheat with the land. This was at the time of the purchase of the land. George W. Dawson testified on cross-examination, that the appellant stated to him, that he, the appellant, “pro ⁴⁴⁸ scntecl the account to the defendant on the 3rd day of January 1853, “and that the defendant refused to pay the same, insisting that the wheat was purchased with the land and was included in the thirty dollars per acre given by him for the land.” It does not appear from the record that any further demand was made on the appellee for the payment of this claim until March 1856, when the witness Dawson, professing to act as the