Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

JOHN McLAUGHLIN, CHAIRMAN, c. TO THE USE OF JAMES STEPHENSON AND WIFE, v. JOHN S. NEILL AND OTHERS.

1. When an action is brought on an official bond, for the benefit of a person injured, in the name of the State or of the officer of the State to whom the bond is made payable, it is regarded as the action of the relator; and on his death is abated, as other actions abate by the death of the plaintiff, unless revived in the manner prescribed by law.

2. Executors or administrators of a plaintiff must, in general, apply to revive the suit within two terms after his death, computing from the day of his death and not from the time the suggestion is entered on the record.

GASTON, J.

When an action is instituted upon an official bond, in the name of the State or of the officer of the State to whom the bond was made payable, by a person alleging himself to have sustained injury by a breach of its stipulations, he is required to set forth in the declaration how he has sustained such injury, and is entitled after judgment to receive to his own use the money therein recovered. Rev. Stat., ch. 81. Such action is therefore regarded as the action of the relator, and by his death it is abated, as other actions abate by the death of the plaintiff, unless revived in the manner prescribed by law. The general rule in regard to the revival of actions, where the plaintiff dies, is, that the cause will abate, unless the executors apply to carry it on within two terms after his death, computing from the day of his death, and not from the suggestion entered by the defendant. Rule, 1 N.C. 88; Anon., 3 N.C. 66. There was nothing in this case alleged to take it without the operation of the general rule, or to bring it within the limits of any exception thereto; and we therefore hold that the judgment of the Court below was correct.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed.

Cited: Sanders v. Bean, 44 N.C. 318; Becton v. Becton, 56 N.C. 423.

(296)

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

McLAUGHLIN v. NEILL
(Jun 1, 1843)