Riden v. Frion, 7 N.C. 577, 3 Mur. 577 (1819)

Nov. 1819 · Supreme Court of North Carolina
7 N.C. 577, 3 Mur. 577
James Riden and others v. John D. Frion

James Riden and others v. John D. Frion.

Craven.

Wherever the statute of limitations is a bar to the recovery of one of the parties, it operates against the whole, because the disability of one does not save the rights of the others. The statute protects the rights of those who are incompetent to protect themselves; but where some of the parties are competent, they ought to take care of the interests of all, by prosecuting a suit within time.

This was an action of detinue for negro slaves, Lucy •and her increase. Pleas, “ general issue and statute of iS limitations.” The case was, that Michael Hyman Ci bequeathed to his daughter, Eliza Ridcn, a negro girl ie named Lucy, daring her natural life, and after her death, “ to her heirs forever.” Eliza Ridcn died, leaving three children, the Plaintiffs in this suit. Two of these children bad Le.cn of full age more than three years after Defendant got possession of the negroes, claiming and holding them adversely : the third child was under the age of twenty-four years, when this suit was commenced. The Jury found a verdict for the Plaintiffs, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the following points : 1st. Whether the will of Michael Hyman gave a life estate to Eliza Ridcn, in negro Lucy, with a remainder to her children, the present Plaintiffs j or an absolute estate therein, so that upon her death, it accrued to her husband who survived her ? 2d. Whether the disability of one of the Plaintiffs saved the rights of the Plaintiffs against the operation of the statute of limitations ?

Tatuor, Chief-Justice,

delivered the opinion of this Court:

It is not deemed necessary to decide the question of title arising upon the title, because the Court is clearly of opinion, that the law is against the Plaintiffs upon the sta*578tute of limitations. Wherever the statute of limitations is a bar to the recovery of one of the parties, in such action, it operates against the whole, because the disability of one does not save the right of the others. The statute protects the rights of those who are incompetent to protect themselves ; but, where some of the parties are competent, they ought to take care of the interests of all, by prosecuting a suit within time. The words of the proviso relate only to the case where all the Plaintiffs are under disability : “ that if any persons or person,” &c. meaning where either a single Plaintiff or several Plaintiffs are under some of the incapacities provided for.

This is the construction which has uniformly been made, whenever the question has occurred.*