Commerce Ins. Co v. Mccraw
| Decision Date | 01 March 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 23.,23. |
| Citation | 215 N.C. 105,1 S.E.2d 369 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | COMMERCE INS. CO. v. McCRAW. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Surry County; J. H. Clement, Judge.
Action by the Commerce Insurance Company against Hasten McCraw on a note. From a judgment overruling plaintiff's demurrer ore tenus to defendant's answer, plaintiff appeals.
Modified and affirmed.
Civil action to recover on promissory note. Demurrer of plaintiff to answer of defendant is overruled.
Plaintiff alleges in substance that on 3 March, 1934, Roy E. Hanks executed and delivered to Surry Sales Company a certain promissory note in the sum of $724.96, payable in monthly installments of $60.41, beginning one month after date and bearing interest at highest legal rate from maturity; that the note was endorsed by defendant; that from time to time certain payments were made on the note so that on 25 October, 1934, there was due thereon a balance of $500; that on 7 December, 1934, the Surry Sales Company, for value received, transferred the note to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is now the owner thereof "for value and before maturity"; that default has been made in the payment thereof; and that defendant, by reason ofhis endorsement of same, is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $500 with interest thereon from 25 October, 1934.
Defendant admits the execution and delivery of the note by Roy E. Hanks; that defendant endorsed the same and that by reason of payments thereon the note had been reduced to $500 as alleged, but defendant denies that any amount is now due on said note and denies that the plaintiff is the owner of the note "for value and before maturity". Defendant avers that the note was given for the purchase price of an automobile to which by conditional sales agreement the Surry Sales Company retained the title as security for said note; that the defendant refused to endorse the note unless and until the automobile was insured against loss and damage by fire and by theft; that an insurance policy in the sum of $500 was issued by the plaintiff covering such loss and damage, with loss payable to Surry Sales Company; that under these conditions and circumstances and on account thereof the defendant endorsed the note. Defendant further avers that on -- June, 1934, the automobile was destroyed, totally or partially, by fire, causing damage sufficiently in excess of the amount of insurance to entitle the "Surry Sales Company and/or Roy E. Hanks" to the full amount of the $500 policy; that the Surry Sales Company "duly filed a proof of loss as required by said policy of insurance; that the note and mortgage or conditional sales agreement had been endorsed by the Surry Sales Company to Surry County Loan & Trust Company of Mt. Airy, North Carolina, and that while Surry County Loan & Trust Company held said note and lien, this defendant was informed by an officer of said Surry County Loan & Trust Company prior to one year from the date of the loss and damage to said automobile by fire, that the insurance company issuing said policy * * * had paid off and settled the loss and damage by payment of the $500 with interest, and that the note which this defendant had endorsed had been paid". The defendant further avers in substance that the local agent of plaintiff procured the Surry Sales Company "to take plaintiff's draft and pay off and discharge said note and mortgage, and had the officers of said Surry Sales Company transfer and assign said note to plaintiff without recourse, as this defendant is informed and believes; that this defendant avers that the said acts were done by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Erickson v. Starling
...189, 34 S.E.2d 148, 160 A.L.R. 460; Leary v. Virginia-Carolina Joint Stock Land Bank, 215 N.C. 501, 2 S.E.2d 570; Commerce Insurance Co. v. McCraw, 215 N.C. 105, 1 S.E.2d 369; Toler v. French, supra; Long v. Oxford, 108 N.C. 280, 13 S.E. 112; Foy v. Haughton, 83 N.C. 467; Lee v. Beaman, 73 ......
- White v. Holding, 241.
-
Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
...v. Allison Fence Co., 236 N.C. 698, 74 S.E.2d 32; Wiscassett Mills Co. v. Shaw, 233 N.C. 71, 62 S.E.2d 487; Commerce Ins. Co. v. McCraw, 215 N.C. 105, 1 S.E.2d 369; Blackmore v. Winders, 144 N.C. 212, 56 S.E. 874. The office of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the complaint, admitti......
-
Adams Et Ux v. Cleve
...195 N.C. 517, 142 S.E. 761; Bessire & Co. v. Ward, 206 N.C. 858, 175 S.E. 208; Mitchell v. Strickland, supra; Commerce Ins. Co. v. McCraw, 215 N.C. 105, 1 S.E.2d 369; Parks v. Princeton, 217 N.C. 361, 8 S.E.2d 217; C.S. § 535. Hence it would seem that the allegations in the answer that the ......