Williams v. . Thompson, 41 S.E.2d 359 (N.C. 1947). · Go Syfert
Search
Williams v. . Thompson, 41 S.E.2d 359 (N.C. 1947). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …it affects the remedy and not the defendant's right of property. ⚠ not in text
23 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1948 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1948 1987 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) McKinney v. Goins
N.C. · 2025 · confidence medium
It merely bars recovery.”); Williams v. Thompson, 227 N.C. 166, 168 (1947) (same).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McKinney v. Goins
N.C. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
In other words, a statute of limitations, as a general proposition, simply serves to procedurally bar recovery by a plaintiff and does not, by contrast, create a property right in the defendant by extinguishing any underlying liability.8 The Supreme Court then recognized that 8 This distinction persists today.See, e.g., Williams v. Thompson, 227 N.C. 166, 168 , 41 S.E.2d 359, 360 (1947) (“The lapse of time [under a statute of limitations] does not discharge the liability.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McKinney v. Goins
N.C. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
In other words, a statute of limitations, as a general proposition, simply serves to procedurally bar recovery by a plaintiff and does not, by contrast, create a property right in the defendant by extinguishing any underlying liability.8 The Supreme Court then recognized that 8 This distinction persists today.See, e.g., Williams v. Thompson, 227 N.C. 166, 168 , 41 S.E.2d 359, 360 (1947) (“The lapse of time [under a statute of limitations] does not discharge the liability.
cited Cited as authority (rule) High Point Bank & Trust Co. v. Highmark Properties, LLC
N.C. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Williams v. Thompson, 227 N.C. 166, 167 , 41 S.E.2d 359, 360 (1947).
examined Cited "see" Boudreau v. Baughman (4×)
N.C. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. Thompson, 227 N.C. 166 , 41 S.E.2d 359 (1947); Sayer v. Henderson, 225 N.C. 642 , 35 S.E.2d 875 (1945).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
T. Lacy Williams, Administrator of the Estate of James H. Thompson
v.
Sarah Thompson, City of Raleigh, County of Wake, and the Unknown Heirs of James H. Thompson.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Feb 26, 1947.
41 S.E.2d 359
Murray Allen for plaintiff, appellee. , P. PL. Busbee and John G. Mills, Jr., for appellant City of Raleigh.
Barnhill.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published
Barnhill, J.

On a motion to strike tbe test of relevancy of a pleading is tbe right of tbe pleader to offer in evidence at tbe trial tbe facts relied upon to sustain tbe plea which, if established, will constitute a cause of action or a defense. And so, if tbe ultimate fact pleaded in a reply is not inconsistent with tbe cause of action alleged in the complaint and constitutes a defense, in whole or in part, to a plea for affirmative relief set up in tbe answer, it should not be stricken. Patterson v. R. R., 214 N. C., 38, 198 S. E., 364; Trust Co. v. Dunlop, 214 N. C., 196, 198 S. E., 645; Pemberton v. Greensboro, 203 N. C., 514, 166 S. E., 396.

Tbe right to reply is not restricted to cases in which tbe defendant pleads a counterclaim. G. S. 1-140, 1-141. If it alleges facts, upon tbe proof of which tbe court should give some relief, it is properly filed. Lumber Co. v. Edwards, 217 N. C., 251, 7 S. E. (2d), 497.

[*168] Tbe lapse of time does not discharge tbe liability. It merely bars recovery. Insurance Co. v. Motor Lines, Inc., 225 N. C., 588. Hence tbe statutes of limitations (except when annexed to tbe cause of action itself, Hanie v. Penland, 193 N. C., 800, 138 S. E., 165) are not available to a litigant as a defense unless pleaded. Insurance Co. v. Motor Lines, Inc., supra; New Hanover County v. Sidbury, 225 N. C., 679; Motor Co. v. Credit Co., 219 N. C., 199, 13 S. E. (2d), 230.

Here tbe petitioner alleges tbe existence of tbe City's claim without admitting its amount or validity. When tbe City filed an answer asserting a lien for taxes, street assessments, and other items, and prayed judgment therefor, tbe plaintiff, for tbe first time, was in a position to plead tbe bar of tbe ten-year statute of limitations. This plea was properly made by way of reply to tbe answer.

Tbe judgment below is

Affirmed.