Beam v. Wright, 306.
| Decision Date | 21 October 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 306.,306. |
| Citation | 22 S.E.2d 270,222 N.C. 174 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | BEAM. v. WRIGHT et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Carteret County; J. Paul Frizelle, Judge.
Action by C. L. Beam against K. W. Wright and wife, wherein the original parties defendant filed an answer and cross complaint against First Citizens Bank & Trust Company, as additional party defendant. From a judgment overruling a demurrer to such cross complaint, the additional party defendant appeals.
Reversed.
This is a civil action instituted by plaintiff C. L. Beam against original defendants K. W. Wright and wife, Mary B. Wright, upon an alleged promissory note for $5,976 dated 25 August, 1940, maturing 26 December, 1940. The complaint alleges the execution and delivery of the note, its maturity and non payment.
The original defendants, K. W. Wright and wife, Mary B. Wright, filed answer and cross complaint, and asked that the First Citizens Bank & Trust Company be made a party defendant. The answer and cross complaint allege a series of transactions between the Wrights and the First Citizens Bank & Trust Company beginning with a loan of $1,500 by the bank to the Wrights on 15 December, 1938, and continuing at various times thereafter with other loans evidence by notes signed and delivered by them to the bank, for which, however, they did not receive proper credits on the records of the bank; and on 28 February, 1940, the Wrights executed a note to the bank for $4,700, which included all their indebtedness to the bank, and this last mentioned note was paid in full and thereafter the bank had no further claim against the Wrights; the answer and cross complaint of the Wrights further allege that in June, 1940, they applied to the bank for a loan of $2,000, and while waiting for this loan to be approved by the bank they borrowed from C. L. Beam, personally, $700 or $800, this being accomplished by the Wrights drawing checks on the bank and the plaintiff C. L. Beam, who was an executive officer of the bank, having said' checks honored and, presumably, personally paying the bank; that subsequently, when the Wrights had issued checks on the bank to an amount between $700 and $800, the plaintiff C. L. Beam prevailed upon the Wrights to sign a note to him, as he represented to them, to cover the amount due him for checks drawn on the bank by the Wrights and paid by Beam, personally; that this note was in blank when signed, the plaintiff Beam representing that he did not know the exact amount due him, but that he would get it when the safe, which was under a time lock, could be opened, and that he would then fill the note out for the correct amount; that the plaintiff Beam, took the note so signed in blank and filled it out for the sum of $5,976, when the true amount due the plaintiff Beam by the defendants Wright was between $700 and $800, and that the note sued on was the note so procured by the plaintiff. The defendants Wright admit an indebtedness to the plaintiff Beam of between $700 and $800.
The First Citizens Bank & Trust Company filed demurrer to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Standard Amusement Co. v. Tarkington
...is necessary to a full and complete determination of the cause. Schnepp v. Richardson, 222 N.C. 228, 22 S.E.2d 555; Beam v. Wright, 222 N.C. 174, 22 S.E.2d 270; Wingler v. Miller, 221 N.C. 137, 19 S.E.2d 247; Montgomery v. Blades, 217 N.C. 654, 9 S.E.2d 397; Wrenn v. Morgan, 148 N.C. 101, 6......
-
Beam v. Wright
...$5,976. Defendants denied liability and pleaded want of consideration. This case was here at Fall Term, 1942, and is reported in 222 N.C. 174, 22 S.E.2d 270. That appeal only the pleadings. On the trial below compulsory reference was ordered and both parties excepted. The referee found the ......
-
Fleming v. Carolina Power & Light Co.
...determination of the cause. ' Hulbert v. Douglas, 94 N.C. 128; Montgomery v. Blades, supra; Wingler v. Miller, supra; Beam v. Wright, 222 N.C. 174, 22 S.E.2d 270. Schnepp v. Richardson, 222 N.C. 228, 22 S.E.2d 555, 557, it is said: 'The cross action defendants seek to set up against Fisher ......
-
Horton v. Perry
... ... Blades, 217 N.C. 654, 9 S.E.2d 397; Wingler v ... Miller, 221 N.C. 137, 19 S.E.2d 247; Beam v ... Wright, 222 N.C. 174, 22 S.E.2d 270 ... Against ... this position the ... ...