Hannah v. . Ingram
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Hatch v. . R. R. (N.C. 1922)
- Hatch v. Alamance Railway Co. (N.C. 1922)
- United States Blowpipe Co. v. Spencer (W. Va. 1899)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The power to bring an action for words is limited by the Revised Code, ch. 65, sec. 3, to six months , after the speaking of themand the question presented here is : At what time was this action commenced ? "When the first writ was issued? Or when the last?
We concur with his Honor below, that it was at the issuing of the last writ — the one from the Fall Term, 1857, to the following-spring. This latter, although denominated an alias, does not connect itself with the other, so as to make one continuous suit, a term having intervened from which no process was issued. In the case of Fullbright v. Tritt, 2 Dev. and Bat. 491, it was held that such a failure under precisely similar circumstances, worked a discontmuanoe of the suit and the issuing of a writ, purporting to be an alias, at the subsequent ■term, was the beginning of a new suit. The case of Fullbright v. Tritt is in point, and is satisfactory to us. It decides the cause before us in accordance with the opinion of the ■Judge below-, and his judgment should, therefore, be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.