Campbell v. McCormac

Decision Date28 February 1884
Citation90 N.C. 491
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesJ. A. CAMPBELL and wife v. E. L. MCCORMAC.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

CIVIL ACTION upon a promissory note, tried at Fall Term, 1883, of ROBESON Superior Court, before McKoy, J.

The complaint states that defendant executed his promissory note on the 29th of May, 1882, and promised to pay to the plaintiffs or order the sum of $273.33, and that no part thereof has been paid. The defendant demurred because the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, in that it does not allege that the note was given for a consideration either good or valuable. Demurrer overruled.

Judgment appealed by defendant.

Messrs. French & Norment, for plaintiffs .

Messrs. J. D. Shaw, T. A. McNeill and Frank McNeill, for defendant .

ASHE, J.

At the common law, promissory notes were not negotiable, but were made so by the statute of 3 & 4 ANNE, ch. 9, which was re-enacted in this state by the act of 1762, and that act was amended by the act of 1786, which declared them to be negotiable, whether expressed to be payable to order or for value received. Rev. Stat., ch. 13, §§1, 2; Rev. Code, ch. 13, §1; THE CODE, §41.

All such notes thus made negotiable import prima facie that they are founded upon a valuable consideration; and while such consideration is essential to their support, yet it is not necessary, in an action upon them, for the plaintiff to aver and prove such consideration; yet when evidence has been introduced by the defendant to rebut the presumption which they raise, the burden is thrown upon the plaintiff to satisfy the jury by a preponderance of evidence that there was a consideration.

It was so held in McArthur v. McLeod, 6 Jones, 475, where the court say: “Although notes as simple contracts require a consideration, it has been long settled that they import a consideration prima facie from the holder, so as to throw the onus on the other side to show the want of a consideration.” The same principle is laid down in Story on Promissory Notes, 181, where it is said: “Between the original parties, and a fortiori between others who by endorsement or otherwise become bona fide holders, it is wholly unnecessary to establish that a promissory note was given upon a consideration; and the burden of proof rests upon the other party to establish the contrary, and to rebut the presumption of validity and value which the law raises for the protection and support of negotiable paper.” To the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Lightner v. Lightner
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • March 13, 1962
    ...a preponderance of the evidence that there was a valuable consideration for the note. Hunt v. Eure, 188 N.C. 716, 125 S.E. 484; Campbell v. McCormac, 90 N.C. 491; Tremont Trust Company v. Brand, 244 Mass. 421, 138 N.E. 564. In an action on a negotiable promissory note the words 'for value r......
  • First State Bank of Hazen, North Dakota, a Corp. v. Radke
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • July 24, 1924
    ... ... conclusive in favor of the plaintiff. What was said upon the ... burden of proof was entirely obiter. Campbell v ... McCormac, 90 N.C. 491, was decided in 1884. The ... Negotiable Instruments Law was adopted in that state in 1899 ... Moreover, the case ... ...
  • Bane v. Guinn
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • December 26, 1900
    ...the jury by a preponderance of evidence that there was a consideration. (6 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 763, 764, and notes; Campbell v. McCormack, 90 N.C. 491; Small v. Clewley, 62 Me. 155, 16 Am. Rep. Delano v. Bartlett, 16 Cush. (Mass.) 364; Bank v. Seymour, 64 Mich. 59.) The gift of a donor......
  • Hudson v. Moon
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • February 24, 1913
    ... ... Huff , 53 Vt. 482; Manistee Nat. Bank v ... Seymour , 64 Mich. 59, 31 N.W. 140; Bogie v ... Nolan , 96 Mo. 85, 9 S.W. 14; Campbell v ... McCormac , 90 N.C. 491; Conmey v. Macfarlane , 97 ... Pa. 361; Best v. Rocky Mt., etc., Bank , 37 Colo ... 149, 85 P. 1124, 7 L. R. A ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT