Whatever hardship there may be in this case, there is no legal ground or principle to warrant the Court to render judgment for the Plaintiff. The act of limitation would amount to a general and positive bar, were not certain exceptions contained in the proviso; we cannot add to these, others, which the Legislature has omitted; nor construe cases to be within the saving, which is plain were not meant to be included. A Court of Equity has, under circumstances similar to the present, interposed its authority to restrain *72a Defendant from pleading the Act ; but as a question of law, the decision must be for the Defendant.
Vance v. Ex'rs of Grainger, 1 N.C. 71, 1 Cam. & Nor. 71 (1800)
June 1800
·
North Carolina Court of Conference
1 N.C. 71, 1 Cam. & Nor. 71
Samuel Vance vs. the Ex'rs of Caleb Grainger.
This was an Action on the Case brought in the Superior Court of Law for Wilmington District, on a note, to which the Defendants pleaded general issue, set-off, and statute limitations.
The Jury find the Note was executed by Caleb Grainger, on the 13th July, 1785, for the sum of one hundred and thirty pounds 4s. 3d. they also find that by an injunction issued 7th July, 1787, by order of the Hon. Samuel Ashe, Judge in the Court of Equity, and an order of the said Court, that the Note aforesaid was lodged in the hands of the Clerk and Master in Equity, and that it appears to them that thereby the Plaintiff was hindered from bringing suit on said note, that he afterwards brought suit on the 14th February, 1791; we further find that there is due to the Plaintiff, on a note, the sum of £ 150 10 id.
The question arising on this special verdict, was whether the Plaintiff's demand was barred by the act of limitation.